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 Ryland submitted the following question, Councillor Lancaster delivered the question in his absence.

 

Once again we hear important details from your articles in the herald newspaper page two of last week’s edition.

Please explain to me why you wish to reveal details of the new warding for the east unitary authority to the general public in the newspaper before telling members of the council you lead first or even instructing the council officers to release the details last week in the online briefing for local government reform? An event I might add that neither yourself nor your deputy attended.

 

The Leader gave the following response:

 

The Draft Structural Changes Order for Cumbria was received via email on 3rd November 2021 with an accompanying letter from DLuHC confirming the contents. This was forwarded to all Councillors on 9th November. The letter from DLuHC confirmed that there was a two week deadline for any comments on the provisions of the order (17th November). An all member briefing was arranged by the Corporate Leadership Team on 10th November to allow all members to ask questions and seek further clarification on the detail contained in the order. At that briefing a number of questions were raised particularly regarding the number of Councillors and warding arrangements contained in the draft SCO. A letter was sent by the Interim Chief Executive by the deadline to DLuHC seeking further clarification on warding arrangements and outlining comments from both officers and members. An email was sent to all Councillors on 18th November providing a copy of that letter together with a detailed response to questions raised at the briefing on 10th. The email also included detail of provisional warding arrangements although it was made clear that these were different to that contained within the draft SCO. The interim Chief Executive’s letter to DLuHC sought clarity on this issue.

 

I can confirm that none of this information was made available to the press and media. In accordance with instruction from DLuHC the draft SCO was only made available to Councillors and the briefing by CLT was for Councillors only. Any press articles have not been initiated by this Executive. Any comment in the press and media from EDC is in response to media interest raised via other sources.

 

This Executive is committed to keeping all members appraised of current developments but we are unable to control media interest generated from other sources.

 

The Corporate Leadership Team were aware that both Cllr Robinson and myself were unavailable at the time of the Member Briefing. The briefing was for officers to relay factual information to members. DLuHC is the decision maker, not the Leader or Deputy Leader so we had nothing to add to the officers’ briefing.

 

Councillor Clark asked the following question:

 

As a Member of this Council, I have received numerous complaints regarding the dilapidated state of Castle Park in recent times, in spite of its awarding of ‘Green Flag’ status. In light of the recent large grant to Penrith Football Club & further additional monetary aid from this & Penrith Town Councils towards the renovation of the Tennis Courts & facilities, what funds are being set aside and management plan implemented by this Council to address the perceived falling standards at Castle Park?

 

Councillor Sharp gave the following response:

 

There is a schedule of maintenance and improvements identified in the Castle Park Management Plan 2021 – 2025 that are being actioned using existing budget allocations. This management plan is very important in maintaining Green Flag status.

 

Not all actions and costs in the report agreed by Executive on 23 November about Castle Park relates to the Tennis Club as is suggested in the question, rather other improvements to the Park that will benefit wider users. These include:

  • New lighting along the path between the entrance opposite the station to Castle Drive
  • Repairing paths and steps
  • Repairing damaged drainage
  • Removing the dilapidated kiosk and replacing it with an extension to the Bower
  • Improving disabled access

 

Councillor Clark asked the following supplementary question:

 

I have visited Castle Park this afternoon. Can you explain how the grade 2 kiosk can be described as dilapidated and beyond economic repair when the moat footbridge supports appear rotten and could be a danger to members of the public.

 

Councillor Sharp indicated that a written response would be given.

 

Councillor Clark asked the following question:

 

Will EDCs Leader’s recent visit to the Cop 26 Climate Crisis Conference in Glasgow assist the Executive to reconsider its decision to fell the Carbon retentive Weymouth Pine presently standing proudly in the grounds of Voreda House thus further endorsing its full alignment & commitment to EDCs zero carbon policy?

 

The Leader gave the following response:

 

It is unfortunate, but necessary to remove the Weymouth Pine to allow the refurbishment of Voreda House. The reasons for its removal are:

1. To allow the formation of new supports for the external wall construction combined with enhanced insulation buried at least 1m below ground level

2. To allow for the necessary space for scaffolding for the safe erection of the new external wall construction

3. To remove the need for installing additional sub-surface protection to the adjacent external wall which would be technically difficult

4. To allow safe and adequate access around building during demolition and construction works 

 

The carbon storage of the Weymouth Pine is calculated at 743kg. The calculated carbon footprint of Voreda House in its current form when occupied is 81000kg per year.  After the refurbishment the anticipated carbon footprint of Voreda House will be Net Zero. The plans also include planting six new trees, who carbon capture will be small to begin with but will increase as they grow. Therefore keeping the tree would result in less than 1% of the carbon reduction made possible by its removal and is therefore in line with our zero carbon policy.

 

From a biodiversity point of view, the tree is native to North America where it is a useful tree for many species including grey squirrels. Felling the pine, though of course regrettable, will not be a great loss to local biodiversity. Trees native to the UK are more beneficial to a range of organisms and so can contribute both as individual specimens and as part of a nature network. Planting new native trees will be more beneficial to insects which support our declining bird population, and may we hope extend the range of our own endangered native mammals.

 

Councillor Clark asked the following supplementary question:

 

If the Weymouth Pine must be felled to deliver refurbishment of Voreda House exterior, has due thought been given to the disposal of its mortal remains? Will they be converted into a means to alleviate seasonal fuel poverty amongst the poor of the parish? Some of whom would doubtless be eternally grateful for the offer, or used ecologically elsewhere. With acknowledgments to Wenceslaus, Duke of Bohemia, 907 to 935.

 

Councillor Taylor gave the following response:

 

I don’t think they would be eternally grateful for it as firewood. Maybe we can consider some sort of memorial, a Margaret Clark bower?