Agenda item

5.1

Public Question in respect of the General Cemetery

5.1.1

Jim Dimond asked, given contradictory answers received to date and the lack of an Equality Impact Assessment, what was the reason why the City Council wanted a car park within the General Cemetery? Would the Cabinet Member attend an event being held to speak about the plans on 27 April?

5.1.2

Councillor Mary Lea, Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure, responded that the overall development project was a great project for the Cemetery and she was pleased that money had been granted for this from the Heritage Lottery Fund. It needed to be made accessible for everyone, including people who needed to park, so that is why the disabled parking places had been included in the initial plans.

5.1.3

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, added that if Mr Dimond sent an email to Councillor Lea confirming the arrangements for the event on 27 April, Councillor Lea would attend.

5.2

Public Question in respect of Mount Pleasant House

5.2.1

Nigel Slack stated that responses to his previous questions on the delays to the sale of Mount Pleasant House to Hermes Care had raised concerns with him about the way this decision was made, the supporting evidence provided by officers of Property Services and the Scrutiny process undertaken. Mr Slack had therefore revisited the original documentation from the Scrutiny process and, in particular, the responses to his questions at the Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 14 March 2018 given by Councillor Olivia Blake.

5.2.2

In Mr Slack’s view, the responses provided to him were a litany of missing answers, half answers and apparent deliberate obstructiveness. It was now 12 months on from a decision that was supposedly a clearly better option for the Council. That was 12 months of ongoing maintenance and security costs for the building (unless it was being allowed to rot). What has this delay cost? What precisely was the cause of this ongoing delay? Were the buyer’s finances in place? Were there issues with planning? Were there issues with heritage? Had heads of terms been agreed? Had contracts been signed? Could the Council provide a clear, open and transparent response to this please?

5.2.3

Councillor Julie Dore responded that alternative premises needed to be found for Shipshape and this had now been identified and discussions were being held as to when they could move into these new premises. This now meant that the sale and contract with Hermes Care could proceed. In relation to Mr Slack’s other questions, she was not aware of any other issues delaying the sale.

5.3

Public Question in respect of Webcasting

5.3.1

Nigel Slack commented that he trusted that the test of the new audio facilities went well at the recent Council meeting. Could the Council confirm when the full webcasting facilities will be available and when and where this can be found on the Council website?

5.3.2

Councillor Julie Dore confirmed that the test of the audio facilities went well and she was pleased that they had done the test. At the next Full Council meeting the system would be in full operation unless anything untoward happened before then. It would be publicised on the website when the meeting would be webcast.

5.4

Public Question in respect of Waste Management Budget Savings

5.4.1

Nigel Slack stated that, in relation to item 12 on the agenda, Waste Management Budget Savings 2019, he recalled an undertaking from the Council to review this contract with a view to it being broken up and portions of the contract let to smaller local companies or even being brought in-house. Where was the Council in this review process?

5.4.2

Councillor Lewis Dagnall, Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, commented that a decision had been taken following the review undertaken 18 months ago. All options had been considered but Cabinet ultimately concluded the best way forward as outlined in the minutes from the Cabinet meeting held on 13 December 2017. Cabinet’s view is that public services are best run by public bodies and would bring historic contracts in-house wherever possible. However, where this was impracticable or expensive or would affect services, this was not always possible.