Minutes:
No questions had been submitted under Procedure Rule 8.6 and Councillor Booth, as leader of the main opposition group, asked questions under Procedure Rule 8.4, as follows:
· is the Council going to modernise the way it interacts with the public, in particular with access to meetings and the possibility of screening meetings in the future as other councils do? Although he had the question answered in relation to timescales in an e-mail, he felt it was a broader subject than this. The Leader stated that he would expand upon this response;
· further to the Leader’s role on the Combined Authority and his update to members last week on the Wisbech 2020 projects, Councillor Mrs Bucknor had suggested a briefing to Councillors and is it the Leader’s intention to provide a briefing? The Leader stated that the Council was given a late opportunity to participate in a paid for editorial by Anglian Water, with no new information on the projects being available;
· what is the position with the Wisbech Rail Project as it seems to be losing momentum? The Leader stated that it has been to the Wisbech Access Study and passed by the County Council only 5-6 weeks ago. The project is in its infancy at the moment and once more information is available he would provide it to Members. Councillor Booth expressed the view that this contradicts what Councillor King stated when he was Portfolio Holder when he indicated it was at more advanced stage more than six months ago;
· when is the Council going to engage with the public over Wisbech Garden Town as it is moving ahead at some speed and the public are unaware, which he has concerns about? The Leader stated that contact from the Environment Agency is still awaited over flood risk and whether it will allow the development to be built;
· is there any more information on the Mayor of the Combined Authority’s published document on strategic initiatives, which includes the desire to extend the M11 past Chatteris up to the Guyhirn Roundabout? It is vague in detail but does refer to investment through public or private initiatives and is there any further information on this? The Leader stated that the Mayor has had various meetings with investors, both nationally and internationally, and once he is aware of any further information he will provide it to Members. The Mayor is still trying to finalise portfolios, which is hoped will be concluded in a week, and it is hoped that further information will be forthcoming after this;
· Cabinet agreed earlier today to pass the costs of repairs and maintenance of parish street lighting to the Parish Councils and, therefore, costs to parishioners in the precepts. How will the Council let parishioners know about this issue as the decision was made by this Council and it will involve costs to people living in rural villages? Up to now, street lighting has been paid for in the Council Tax and shared equally and fairly and this decision means there will be extra costs in rural villages because they are paying for the street lighting in the towns through Council Tax and the parish lighting through precepts. The Leader acknowledged that some street lights belong to the District and some to the Parish. Cabinet has made a compromise on the energy costs for twelve months listening to the arguments put forward. The costs will be equitable across the parishes and depend upon whether the parish becomes part of the Council’s contract or goes it alone, for which there would be grant funding. Councillor Booth made the point that this still does not answer his question about how parishioners will be informed that it is the District Council’s decision to pass on costs to people in the villages. The Leader stated that these assets belong to the parishes and it will be for the parishes to give an explanation as to why they are raising precepts and he believes that most parishes put their precepts up in the past to cover the eventuality of the street light issue. Councillor Booth disagreed with it being fair as the previous situation came about due to the way assets were allocated by the Local Government Act 1974 with for some reason the towns lighting being provided by the District Council. In his view, the reason that the Council paid for the Parish street lighting was in recognition that this legislation was flawed in the first place and now the Council is penalising parishioners that live in the villages as it is passing on those costs. This is not a good situation and the Council should act for the good of the whole District and it is some of the most vulnerable people that live in the villages. The Leader stated that this situation has been going on for over four years and the Parish Councils have had ample opportunities through various means to express their concerns, with all cases being assessed. However, the Council have had to make a decision as it is in a difficult situation economically having to make significant savings. These lights are parish assets and the Council has paid for them for the past thirty years which it cannot longer afford to do;
· are there going to be any further surprises in relation to the Comprehensive Funding Review that would affect the parishes? The issue is transparency as the position with the parishes keeps moving being told different things at different meetings. The Leader stated that at present nothing else would change.
Councillor King stated in relation to Councillor Booth’s comments on the Wisbech Rail project that he has no recollection of saying the study was underway as a source of funding had not been secured.