Agenda item - Written questions from Councillors

7.1           The Mayor reminded the Council that Councillors’ questions and the replies from the appropriate Councillor were now taken as read by reference to the list, which had been circulated.

7.2           The Mayor noted that Councillor Fryer had given notice that she wished to withdraw both of her questions listed on the agenda at Item No’s 7(a) and 7(d).

7.3           The Mayor noted that the Members responsible for the written questions were not present and therefore could not put forward a supplementary question.  He asked that copies of the written answers be sent to them.  He then asked whether any Members present wished to put a supplementary question to any of the questions listed and detailed below:

(b)

7.4           Councillor Hamilton asked: "A confidential list of council properties to be considered for disposal was drawn up for The Conservative Administration and was featured in an article in the local press in May.  Portslade council offices featured on that list.  Please will you give assurances to the residents of the western part of the city that this public building will remain open to provide services to local residents, and that Portslade Town Hall and the adjoining bowling greens will remain as amenities for public use?"

7.5           Councillor Mears replied: “Yes. Preliminary consideration has been given to the possibility of replacing the existing offices behind the Town hall with new offices making better use of the site and providing more accommodation.  However, the Town Hall and the bowling green would have remained untouched and available as before.  This proposal was part of the wider accommodation strategy for the Council aimed at making better use of our own buildings, providing better offices and releasing accommodation leased from private owners.  The proposals for the offices have not been taken further at this stage as the accommodation strategy is currently focussing on Kings House.”

7.6           Councillor Harmer-Strange asked a supplementary question, “Would Councillor Mears agree that it is right and proper for the Council to seek optimum value for money for its council tax payers and that this should include looking at all possible options for its considerable property portfolio? And I would like to add that I am pleased that the Leader has been able to quash these rumours about Portslade Town Hall today.”

7.7           Councillor Mears replied, “Yes, I am delighted to confirm that it would not be proper of the council if it did not review its entire property portfolio.”

(c)

7.8           Councillor Duncan asked: “Can Councillor Mears outline her vision for the future of funding for area-based working and regeneration work across the city: specifically, can Cllr Mears give this council a guarantee that the administration is committed to devolving some elements of decision-making, backed with appropriate funding, to neighbourhoods, as envisaged in the Local Government and Involvement in Public Health Act 2007?”

7.9           Councillor Mears replied: “We need to make sure our area based working really makes a difference to people on the ground. The end of Neighbourhood Renewal Funding is a challenge, but also an opportunity to review our approach.  The Reducing Inequality Review showed that inequality is most serious in our most deprived areas, but that it is also spread in pockets across the city. To address that, we need to work in new ways. If Councillor Duncan wants more detail on our vision and targets in this area, he can find it in the Corporate Plan and the Local Area Agreement.

As to the funding, we have agreed transitional arrangements for 2008/09 so we can preserve the learning and experience of staff, members and communities. Most importantly, we want to preserve the strong relationships that have been built between communities and the council. We are keen to sustain what has worked and expand the offer wider, and will be addressing this through the normal budgeting round.

On devolution, the City Council and LSP are developing a Community Engagement Framework for the city. The Framework will be the principal reference guide for all LSP members. It will also identify actions that need to be taken to improve community engagement in the city. The framework is currently under extensive consultation which will finish in early September. The results of the consultation will be used to inform our future approach to area working. We are committed to giving communities information, support and opportunities to take control and we will look at the best ways to achieve that with an open mind. All members will have the opportunity to input into the development and deliver of the priority actions in the Framework."

7.10       Councillor Simson asked a supplementary question, “Would Cllr. Mears agree that the previous Administration badly let down some of the most vulnerable residents of the City by failing to properly plan for the end of Neighbourhood Renewal Funding and that this lackadaisical approach has led to unnecessary worry for council staff, external partners and members of those communities and it has taken this Administration to find the funding to keep the best of this work going?

7.11       Councillor Mears replied, “Yes, the previous Administration had no plans for taking this matter forward and the Conservative Administration was working with officers to ensure the council could deliver on community engagement across the city.”

(e)

7.12       Councillor Taylor asked: “Could the councillor tell me the costs of holding a meeting of full cabinet, and the average costs for holding a cabinet member meeting?

Such costs should involve venue charges, documents, catering, security and salaries and allowances for staff and members in attendance."

7.13       Councillor Mears replied; ““It has always been perceived that the cost of holding full cabinet and cabinet member meetings would be cheaper than the cost of running the former committee meetings.  However, I feel that the actual amount of officer time it would take to research and quantify this as you have asked would be both unreasonable and out of proportion with the amount of information it would provide. 

As you know there will be a review of the new governance arrangements at the end of the first six month period and if there are concerns at that point, it may be appropriate then for the council to review the cost of providing documentation and catering for each of them.”

7.14       Councillor Oxley asked a supplementary question, “Would the Leader of the Council agree that the costs associated with the system were anticipated to be similar to those under the committee system which all Members had wanted to retain and that they would be looked at as part of the 6-month review?”

7.15       Councillor Mears replied, “Yes, it was intended to look at costs as part of the review.”

(f)

7.16       Councillor Davey asked: “When the Cabinet Member for the Environment announced his decision not to implement the wide scale ban on dogs using the City's beaches we were assured that this was evidence of the council listening to the public and then acting accordingly. Could the appropriate cabinet member please explain why they have not continued this laudable practice in response to the consultation on the North Street Mixed Priority Route (MPR) Road Safety Scheme? In her recent decision Cllr Young recently ignored the majority public opinion over the preferred options for both the North Street Quadrant and Ship Street, in the latter case introducing a fourth option that hadn't even been consulted on.”

7.17       Councillor Theobald replied: “Thank you for your question in connection with the North Street Mixed Priority Route report that was approved at the recent Cabinet Member Meeting.

Public consultation makes an important contribution in helping decision makers determine what the priorities and concerns are for all members of the community.  Councillors and officers use this information to help them design policy or focus resources or, as in this case, continue with the development of proposals for a transport scheme.”

7.18       Councillor McCaffery asked: “Would the Cabinet Member for Environment tell the Council what action City Clean takes when residents put their recycling out for collection without properly sorting it?”

7.19       Councillor Theobald replied: “If the box is full of unsorted recyclables City clean employees should sort it into the relevant compartments on the side of the truck.  If the box is full of just rubbish, they will not collect it and they should either leave a card letting the resident know why the box was not collected, what the resident needs to do in the future, and the crew will report the problem to their manager.”