Issue - items at meetings - Public Questions

(The closing date for receipt of public questions is 12 noon on 16 December 2010)

(copy attached).

71.1               The Cabinet Member reported that 3 public questions had been received.

71.2               Mr Tom French asked the following question:

               “In the agenda of the last Environment Cabinet Member Meeting officials estimated that it will cost the City Council £2200.00 to publicise the reinstatement of the dog-free area in Queens Park. What is the total projected cost to the Council of removing and then reinstating the dog-free area in Queens Park, including - but not limited to - any money, staff time and other resources that will have been spent on consulting, reconsulting, seeking any legal advice, and publicising any changes to the dog-free area?”

71.3               The Cabinet Member gave the following response:

               “Thank you for your question. When we undertook the original revisions to our Dog Control Orders, they covered the whole city including our parks, beaches, golf courses and other areas of open space. The cost of the Orders, including consultation, was included in an overall figure and was not therefore disaggregated for one particular area.

In response to the majority of residents requesting a change to the dog-free area in Queens Park the resultant consultation cost £2000, slightly less than our original estimate.”

71.4               Mr French asked the following supplementary question:

               “Do you think that this was a good use of money, or do you think that the money could have been better spent on other thing?”

71.5               The Cabinet Member gave the following response:

               “There was considerable publicity around the original consultation, therefore I don’t know why those living around Queen’s Park didn’t make their views known at that time. However, a year later some residents asked for a review, and this was opposed another group of residents. We carried out a consultation and accepted the view of the majority. I hope that all the residents in Queen’s Park will see that we have listened to them and that most are happy with the outcome.”

71.6               Mr Chris Cooke had submitted the following question:

               “The council administration's Value for Money report to cabinet in October 2010 demonstrated that £600,000 was to be cut from council supported bus routes over the next few years.  Can the Cabinet Member for Environment state that the bus routes 21, 21B, 81, 81A, and 22 will be exempt from these cuts?”

71.7               Mr Cooke was unable to attend the meeting, however the Cabinet Member gave the following response, which would be forwarded to Mr Cooke:

               Thank you for your question.

“The Value for Money (VFM) savings referred to in the report to Cabinet in October 2010 were previously approved by Full Council in February 2010.

               The £600,000 savings to which you refer, have already been identified and will be realised over the next four years. These savings of £600,000 do not involve the services to which you refer.”

71.8               Ms Tracey Hill asked the following question:

               "Several residents in the Elm Grove area, notably Franklin Road and Hartington Place, have commented on the number of large vehicles parked in their streets for long periods of time. This causes problems with parking spaces and general aesthetics, particularly if a vehicle is right outside someone's window. As the vast majority of residents are against a residents' parking scheme, is it possible to limit the impact of these large vehicles in some other way? For example, could a time limit of four weeks be placed on any large vehicle remaining parked in the same place?"

71.9               The Cabinet Member gave the following response:

               “Thank you for your question. The City Council can only enforce vehicle height and size restrictions as part of a residents’ parking scheme within a Controlled Parking Zone and, as you will be aware, residents voted against this. This area is therefore uncontrolled and any vehicle is allowed to park there and, providing the vehicle is roadworthy and not abandoned, the council cannot insist that it is moved after a given period of time.

               If the vehicles are lived in then the Travellers Liaison team can monitor the situation and take any necessary action. However, if there are large vehicles from a local business then the Council will consider pro-actively discussing a travel plan with the business concerned.”

71.10          Ms Hill asked the following supplementary question:

               “What do you consider to be the definition of ‘roadworthy’?”

71.11          The Cabinet Member gave the following response:

               “If the car is not abandoned and is clearly taxed then we consider it to roadworthy.”

71.12          The Lead Commissioner for City Regulation & Infrastructure explained that it was difficult to prove that a car was not roadworthy. A car would be deemed roadworthy if it was taxed and insured and if it’s tyres and general condition were in good order.