It seems you are using Internet Explorer 6 (or maybe you just have css disabled). We no longer guarantee that our site will display as intended in this browser.

Agenda item

Questions by Members

To receive questions from Members under Rule 12 of the Constitution

 

Minutes:

Councillor David Ryland asked the following question:

 

‘In view of my information to you at the overview and scrutiny committee, all Eden councils copy paper is sourced from Brazil.

Will you be instigating a review of all Edens consumables to clarify that they are compatible with the aims and objectives within the council plan and that they are ethical and of good provenance?’

 

Councillor Mark Rudhall responded as follows:

 

‘Thank you Councillor Ryland.  Firstly I think it would be useful to provide some context around the current sourcing of paper, which is contracted through Heaton’s who are a local wholesaler with an office in Penrith.  This is therefore in line the Councils aims and objectives of using local suppliers.  Through the quotation process there were options of where paper was sourced, however no paper is manufactured in the UK.  The decision was therefore based upon the lowest price and this is in line with the Councils procurement policies.

 

To return to your question, a selection of EDC staff are part of a ‘climate champions’ group whose role is to challenge practices for sustainability.  All colleagues are encouraged to look for opportunities to work in a more sustainable way and consider their carbon footprint.  Since the Carbon Literacy training provided, we have seen an increase in engagement and enthusiasm by staff members leading to issues being raised and addressed.  In addition, we are committed to reducing our carbon footprint, initially by reviewing source 1 and 2 carbon.  The third stage will be source 3 which includes contracts and sourcing of consumables. As localised opportunities for improvements are identified in the interim – these are being addressed.’

 

Councillor Ryland asked the following supplementary question:

 

‘I firstly don’t think you can put a price on the climate change rules and we should be looking at our carbon footprint. Could I ask if the Climate Champions group have a suggestion for recycled paper and when will Source 3 be on stream?’

 

Councillor Rudhall gave the following response:

 

‘I do know that recycled paper would be the right thing to do and an option for us. I don’t know when Source 3 would start but will get back to you with a written reply.’

 

Councillor Ryland asked the following question:

 

‘On the 14th of June this year i sent a round robin email with questions regarding the utilities at Voreda house, this remains un answered so i will ask again

in light of the revelation that an amount of over 8K was paid to waterplus logged against voreda house

Who authorised this payment which on the face of it appears excessive?

Please give a breakdown of the amount?

Was the meter read before we took possession of the property and/or did we agree to pay any of the previous owners liabilities.?

This latter question also refers to electricity as i have been informed by residents that electric lights within the property are visible yet no work appears to be ongoing.’

 

Councillor Greenwood gave the following response:

 

‘I have been asked to respond to your question as it sits within my portfolio.

 

In April the Council paid £8859.88 for metered water and unmetered water at Voreda House. We were billed because there had been some limited water usage after we took possession and we are responsible for the unmetered water and sewerage charge (which is based on the size and type of the building) even with the building being empty.

 

Officers considered the bill to be excessive, but the bill was paid as Waterplus’ procedures would have resulted in legal action being taken against the Council if it were not.  The bill was authorised by the Deputy Chief Executive.  The value was challenged, ultimately requiring the Council complaining to the Consumer Council for Water.  Waterplus have conceded and we have subsequently received a refund of  £7,483.89.  The net bill is therefore £1,375.99.

 

Meters were read when the Council took possession of the building and did not agree to pay any of the previous owners liabilities.

 

Officers are not aware of any lights being left on at Voreda House but will check the lighting system to ensure that lights cannot go on.’

 

Councillor Ryland asked the following supplementary question:

 

‘Thank you for a comprehensive response. It’s a pity it took three months to get an answer and I’m astonished that a courteous apology wasn’t offered. Voreda House is a major component of the One Eden Transformation. Can you or whoever is the Portfolio Holder it sits under tell me when the One Eden Working Group resume as Meetings might have been suspended for some time now? It is so difficult to find information out about the meeting cancellations and suspensions. It’s just like Voreda House, the lights are on but there is nobody in the house.’

 

Councillor Greenwood gave the following response:

 

‘The One Eden Working Party will be resumed in due course. There is a lot of work to be done quite soon coming up and officers will be in touch with you with invitations.’

 

Councillor Ryland asked the following question:

 

‘I have come across recently a severe backlog of 40 cases within planning for planning enforcement , after telephone calls with officers it appears that any new concerns by residents will only be considered on a priority basis meaning that by time any potential infringement is investigated it may be too late.

its a case of being understaffed and also  requiring additional resources.

a backlog of work as serious as this undermines the reputation of this council.

Will the leader agree with me that this is a frontline service to Eden residents and can she authorise and divert additional funding to this department immediately to ameliorate the situation?’

 

The Leader gave the following response:

 

‘Enforcement cases are generated by the public and by Councillors.

 

The numbers have increased significantly over the last year. The planning service has no control over the numbers so they are difficult to plan for.

 

Enforcement cases raised must be investigated but it a matter of judgement over which should be the subject of enforcement action. Where cases are significant, lack of enforcement can undermine the planning system and lead to further increases in the number of enforcement cases.

 

Currently there is the equivalent of one member of staff dealing with enforcement cases (two part time). They are currently being supported by an Enforcement Technician (temporary post since January 2021) who is helping with much of the admin and initial work on cases, to free up as much time as we can for the enforcement officers to undertake investigations. In addition, we have made a couple of process improvements last year, again to try and free up some time and capacity for the officers. Furthermore, the forthcoming Planning Advisory Service Peer Review is also looking into the resourcing and processes for the enforcement team as well. This is due to be completed in October.

 

Unlike planning applications where fees are charged there is of course no income generated by enforcement activities that can be used to help fund staff resources.

 

The current backlog is significantly greater than forty (closer to two hundred). Enforcement staff prioritise the enforcement cases where they can.

 

Recent increases in numbers of cases may be related to people spending more time at home and being affected by planning noncompliance.  The limited ability of staff to carry out visits during the pandemic is also a contributory factor.

 

I do agree that this is a frontline service for Eden residents but all staffing matters are dealt with by the Head of Paid Service, not the Leader, so it is not within my power to authorise and divert additional funding.’

 

Councillor Ryland asked the following supplementary question:

 

‘Councillor Taylor, your answer is confusing as it doesn’t match your printed reply we received tonight. You have just said in your reply there are 200 cases backlog. The Enforcement officer told me the backlog is 40 cases so there seems to be a difference there. I’m sorry but I don’t agree that it is an immediate priority as it is blindingly obvious what is required. I will look forward to receiving the Peer Review results and thank you for an insight into your financial priorities.’

 

The Leader responded as follows:

 

‘I didn’t say it was an immediate priority at any point. It is a high priority.’

 

Councillor Raine asked the following question:

 

‘At the 2nd of September  meeting of scrutiny I asked about the number of charging points EDC were installing, see extract from the minutes below .

 

Councillor Raine asked about the number of EV charging points that Eden DC were installing.

 

Councillor Rudhall responded saying four were planned for Appleby, four at Eden DC Town Hall and an as yet unknown number at Mansion House in a pilot scheme. The original supplier had withdrawn and this was being opened up to other potential suppliers.

 

The following day I read in the Herald “dated Saturday September 4th but I receive it on the Friday”

 

Plug to be pulled on Appleby charging points It goes on to say that the installation of electric vehicle charging points at Appleby’s Broad Close car park could be scrapped due to a £112,000 price tag on part of the work. The Environment Agency had informed Appleby Town Council this was because a substation would need to be installed to power the EV charging points.

 

Councillor Rudhall gave no indication there was a problem at Appleby when he answered my question the previous day to the Herald publication. At  that time was he not aware of the extra funding required when he answered my question at the scrutiny meeting? Have the council met with the Environment agency to resolve this issue and agreed to part fund the substation?.

Councillor Mark Rudhall responded as follows:

 

‘Environment Agency have been in discussion with EDC regarding the scheme in Appleby and recently identified the need for a substation to support the EV charging points. The EA met with officers on 17th September, following which a report is being prepared in order to seek approval for additional funding to support the scheme. ‘

 

Councillor Nicolson asked the following question:

 

‘At Council on 28 July 2021 I raised a number of questions with members of the Executive. I was advised that I would receive written answers to the supplementary questions I asked and which are reproduced in the minutes of the meeting. I also attach a copy of the questions for information.

 

To date I have received an answer to question no 5 from Councillor Rudhall. Please explain why the other four questions have not been answered.’

 

The Leader responded as follows:

 

‘Please accept my apologies, it is not acceptable to wait so long for a written response to your questions.  Some of the responses to your questions required factual information from officers who have been on leave.  I believe you have now received responses to your outstanding questions from the last meeting of Council.

 

The process is being reviewed by the Monitoring Officer.’

 

Councillor Nicolson asked the following supplementary question:

 

‘I can say that I find my experience of asking supplementary questions at Council quite appalling and totally unacceptable. I have waited six weeks for answers to straight forward questions which are directly linked to the answers provided. Is it too much to expect that Members of the Executive clearly understand the answers they are provided with and therefore really there is a need for the offer of written replies? You say there is no system but I disagree and ask do we need any such bureaucracy in questions. If a member undertakes to do something for another Member surely the onus is on the Member concerned to fulfil these obligations. That should be the system. And I ask what the real reason for delay is? Is it apathy, is it arrogance, is it incompetence, or simply a reluctance to put information in the public domain?’

 

The Leader gave the following response:

 

‘Thank you Councillor Nicolson. I think that I can state categorically that it is not the intention to prevent information reaching the public domain which it eventually does. It’s not apathy, arrogance or incompetence. There is a system whereby traditionally the answers have been checked and double checked and go to and fro between officers. Then there is a system which has holes in it and bad holes. I’m unhappy with the situation and the irony that one of the unanswered questions was about the Leader answering questions is not lost on me. All I can say is I do apologise and we will make sure that questions are answered more swiftly in future. I believe in the timeline answers will be given in two weeks and this was stated in the answer I gave last time. Over the summer we are very short staffed. Where people are on leave it becomes difficult to be able to have enough to hive off to and fro to get things answered and it is a fair cop Councillor Nicolson and we will do better in the future.’