Agenda item

Councillor Questions Process:

·         Councillors can ask questions in accordance with rule 11.2 of the Constitution.

·         An answer to a question submitted may take the form of:

(a)          A direct oral answer;

(b)          Where the desired information is in a publication of the Council or other published work, a reference to that publication; or

(c)          Where the reply cannot conveniently be given orally, a written answer circulated later to all members of the Council.

·         A councillor asking a question may ask one supplementary question, without notice, of the councillor to whom the first question was asked. The supplementary question must arise directly out of the original question or the reply.

The following questions have been submitted:

8.1 – Question submitted by Councillor Mary McCartney

To ask the Executive member for Communities and Economic Development

As the Executive member with responsibility for the “access to services agenda and embedding customer focus within services” could you tell me what future the public face of Selby District Council, the Selby town centre “Access Selby” has?

There is a lot of concern amongst residents that the Council plans to shut their only public “front desk”

So, could you please clarify the position and if closure is the preferred option where will residents get that face to face interaction with their local Council?

8.2 – Question submitted by Councillor Mary McCartney

To ask the Executive member for Finance and Resources

As the Executive member with responsibility for the “savings plan” could you please explain how you missed your savings target during the last financial year as highlighted by the Selby Times on Thursday June 27th?

8.3 – Question submitted by Councillor Mary McCartney

To ask the Leader of the Council

During 2018/19,  241 families were allocated social housing in the Selby District.

190 of those families were from the Selby District, with 52 being from outside the Selby District. Yet only 12 Selby families were allocated homes elsewhere in the partnership area.

A net deficit of 39.

So 39 Selby District families lost out on being allocated a home because of Selby District Council being a member of the “North Yorkshire Home Choice” partnership.

Isn’t it time that Selby District Council brought back control of it’s housing policy, left the “North Yorkshire Home Choice” and started putting Selby District families first?

8.4 – Question submitted by Councillor John McCartney

To ask the Executive member for Finance and Resources

Could you please provide the following information in relation to the Programme for Growth Fund; How do you “monitor” this Fund, ensure that this Fund delivers “value for money” and is used “efficiently”? Specifically what is done to ensure that external recipients of the Fund use it appropriately? Can you please update the Council on the current Value of the Fund?

8.5– Question submitted by Councillor John McCartney

To ask the Executive member for Placing Shaping

Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 gives Councils the power to serve an ‘amenity’ notice on the owner of any land or building which is in an unreasonably untidy condition and has an adverse impact on the amenity of the area.

Tidy gardens and land mean an area looks well cared for which helps to make people feel safe in their neighbourhood. If untidy sites are left, they become worse and the area starts to feel neglected and unsafe.

How many “amenity” notices under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 have Selby District Council served in the last two years?

8.6- Question submitted by Councillor John McCartney

To ask the Leader of the Council

“Fly-tipping is a scourge impacting on all parts of the country.

SDC have some great officers fighting a losing battle with the fly-tippers because of the failure of the courts to take the crime of fly-tipping seriously.

Under rules brought in in 2014, fly-tippers can face a maximum punishment of 12 months in prison or a £50,000 fine if convicted in a magistrate’s court.

Yet we see magistrates continuing to hand out fines of a paltry few hundred pounds.

Will the Leader of the Council take the fight, on behalf the public and SDC staff to the Magistrates, and demand that  they start imposing sentences that fit the crime and send out a message that fly-tipping in the Selby District is unacceptable”

It was noted that six questions had been received from Councillors.

Question One

Councillor Mary McCartney asked question one in relation to the customer contact centre as outlined on the agenda.

The Lead Executive Member for Communities and Economic Development explained that the customer contact centre would be relocating to the Civic Centre. He informed Council that visitor numbers to the Contact Centre had reduced by half in recent years and that the relocation to the Civic Centre would allow customers to be closer to services and for opportunities for efficiencies in service delivery.

For a supplementary question, it was queried how elderly people would visit the Civic Centre. The Lead Executive Member for Communities and Economic Development explained that the Civic Centre was well served on a bus route which dropped visitors right outside the venue.

Question Two

Councillor Mary McCartney asked question two in relation to the savings plan as outlined on the agenda.

The Lead Executive Member for Finance and Resources explained that that progress on savings was reported in the 2018/19 quarter four performance report which was considered by the Scrutiny Committee on 4 July 2019. He added that the report showed there was a shortfall of £225k due to delays in the police co-location, contact centre move and channel shift projects which were now expected in 2019/20.

For a supplementary question, it was queried whether the target would be achieved in 2019/20. The Lead Executive Member for Finance and Resources stated there were risks however the aim was to deliver on the savings.

Question Three

Councillor Mary McCartney asked question three in relation to the housing policy as outlined on the agenda.

The Lead Executive Member for Housing, Health and Culture explained that the figure of 241 families housed in the district included those who were housed in Council owned housing and those housed with other housing providers in the Council’s area who used North Yorkshire Home Choice.

Council was informed that a report on North Yorkshire Home Choice was presented to the Policy Review Committee in June where the net migration figure had been discussed. It was noted that report advised that City of York Council had made the decision to leave the Home Choice partnership and therefore Selby’s net migration was expected to reduce. 

The Lead Executive Member for Housing, Health and Culture explained that it had been proposed to the Policy Review Committee that a review of the Council’s allocations policy takes place towards the end of 2019/20. It was noted that the review would allow the Council to explore the reasons for the migration and would be an opportunity to ensure that North Yorkshire Home Choice was still meeting the Council’s needs. The Lead Executive Member for Housing, Health and Culture outlined that some of the benefits of remaining a partner of North Yorkshire Home Choice included reducing administration costs related to finance and staffing for singular authorities and providing Selby residents a greater level of customer choice and control, as well as tackling issues with low demand areas and properties.

Question Four

Councillor John McCartney asked question four in relation to the Programme for Growth as outlined on the agenda.

The Lead Executive Member for Finance and Resources explained that the overall programme total was £10.9m and a breakdown of the programme was outlined in the budget Council agenda for the meeting on 21 February 2019. It was noted that as with all expenditure and income, progress on the programme was reported to Executive and the Scrutiny Committee as part of the quarterly finance reports.

Council was informed that budget allocations were considered by Full Council and funds were allocated through the budget process with Members having the opportunity to scrutinise and challenge them.

The Lead Executive Member for Finance and Resources explained that the spending for the Programme for Growth was subject to the same constitutional and procedure rules as any other expenditure and where necessary, was subject to business case approval. He added that officers applied rigorous procurement processes where necessary to ensure best value was achieved. Council was informed that where funds were expended through external providers, or where the Council was supporting partners to deliver initiatives, the Council was clear about its requirements to have the necessary contractual agreements in place along with monitoring process to ensure its objectives were achieved.

The Lead Executive Member for Finance and Resources outlined that some of the projects under the programme included Olympia Park and the Selby 950 project.

For a supplementary question, it was queried how external monitoring was undertaken. The Lead Executive Member for Finance and Resources explained that there were contractual agreements which were monitored to ensure all the details in the agreement were being fulfilled.

Question Five

Councillor John McCartney asked question five in relation to untidy gardens and land as outlined on the agenda.

The Lead Executive Member for Place Shaping explained that the Council had powers to tackle privately owned untidy gardens or land if they contained items which may be harmful to health or a nuisance. It was noted that with regard to Selby District Council properties, the gardens were the tenant’s responsibility and this was made clear to them when they signed the tenancy agreement. Council was informed of eight incidences of where the Council had taken tenancy enforcement actions in relation to gardens in the last two years.

With regard to section 215 notices, the Lead Executive Member for Place Shaping explained that no section 215 notices had been served in the last two years however if Members had any concerns over particular sites, they were asked to let the relevant officers know.

Question Six

Councillor John McCartney asked question six in relation to fly tipping as outlined on the agenda.

The Leader of the Council explained that he was happy to set up a meeting between himself, the Chief Executive and York Magistrates to discuss the penalties handed out to people convicted of fly-tipping. The Leader of the Council informed Council that he was mindful that fines were handed out to people convicted of fly-tipping when the court used to be situated in Selby.

For a supplementary question, Councillor John McCartney requested that the local MP, Nigel Adams be approached to support the issue. The Leader of the Council explained that the Mr Adams had written to the Secretary of State on the issue.