Agenda item

5.1

Petition in respect of Broadband Access on Abbeyfield Road

A petition was submitted, containing 20 signatures, requesting the support of the City Council and local Councillors for faster broadband access and to lobby Virgin Media to install cable in the area and to complete the previous route that was stopped in the area.

RESOLVED: That the petition be referred to the Leader of the Council for consideration.

5.2

Public Questions in respect of Deprived Areas

Mr Martin Brighton asked a number of questions in relation to deprived areas in the City. Firstly he asked what criteria, in addition to the Government index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) figures, were used to measure the success or progress consequent upon pouring vast resources into a deprived area?

In response Councillor Harry Harpham, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods, stated that the Council had a number of ways to track how well areas of the city were performing.  Ward profiles were produced for each ward, setting out how well that ward was performing against the city average on a wide variety of indicators across a number of topic areas, including demographics, poverty and access to services; economy and enterprise; health; housing; community safety; and environment.  These ward profiles were publicly available on the Council’s website. Individual programmes of activity would have their own evaluation and measurement mechanisms built into them to quantify the level of impact that programme has had.

Mr Brighton’s second question stated that, historically, using the Government’s own IMD figures, some deprived areas had either not improved, or improved negligibly, or even continued to decline, despite the vast resources allocated to that area. Was this information shared with the voters before elections, and if not, why not?

Councillor Harry Harpham responded that Information about each of the city’s wards was made available publicly through the ward profiles as mentioned in the answer to the first question.  Information about the Council’s spending was made available in the annual budget report, which was also publicly available on the Council’s website.

Mr Brighton’s third question asked where areas had for fifteen or more years been designated as deprived, but had improved little or not at all, despite the continuing pouring of vast resources into those areas, up to the change of Government, which Elected Members had offered to stand down for what an outsider would conclude was years of failure, and if none, why none?

Councillor Harry Harpham commented that Members stood down every four years and it was then down to the judgement of the public.

Mr Brighton then asked given that these deprived areas continued to receive funds, perhaps justifiably, amid much publicity, and retaining the same political profile, how would this Council respond to any expressed perceptions that, in effect, political patronage was being bought?

Councillor Harpham commented that any such perceptions would be mistaken.

5.3

Public Question in respect of Public Questions at Council Meetings

Mr Martin Brighton referred to a recent Democracy meeting sponsored by the Houses of Parliament Outreach Service where he stated that local people said they refused to engage with this Council because there was no meaningful engagement in the decision-making processes that affected their lives and the communities, and that it was a waste of time attending Cabinet and Full Council to ask questions because they did not get answers, or were treated inappropriately. Mr Brighton therefore asked what the Council was doing to rectify this?

Councillor Harpham responded that Councillors were committed to responding to the views and concerns of residents and the Council actively supported a wide range of ways for local people to talk to politicians and those making decisions about the things that affected them. We are also very alive to the findings of the Fairness Commission around the need for better communication and involvement of communities in the city with statutory agencies and one of the Council’s Equality and Fairness objectives was to “strengthen the voice and influence of under-represented communities within the city”.

Most Council meetings were open to the public and they could attend and ask questions. This included Full Council, Cabinet, and a range of other formal Committee meetings. The Council published details in advance so that people can know what is coming up and who best to contact about getting their issues raised and discussed. In the interest of openness and transparency recording was also allowed at Council, Cabinet and committee meetings open to the public. People are also encouraged to take part in the Scrutiny process, and the recent review of Scrutiny highlighted the importance of involvement of local residents, community organisations and partners as an important part of the Scrutiny process.

However, it was important to say, that formal meetings were not the only way people could get meaningfully involved in having a say and influencing the Council, particularly as many issues involved talking with people over a period of time to identify and understand issues and concerns and inform solutions.

5.4

Public Question in respect of Residents Involvement in TARAs

Mr Martin Brighton asked who had decided that residents should be restricted in the extent of their involvement with TARAs and housing issues and when and why?

Councillor Harpham commented that residents weren’t restricted in their involvement with TARAs and he wanted them to become more involved. The Household and Neighbour Adviser Panel was being established and the membership of this was being consulted upon. It was agreed that tenants only would be represented on that as it would deal with issues which directly affected them. There would also be a single leaseholder representative. Councillor Harpham welcomed and actively encouraged more people to become involved in TARAs.