Minutes:
A Question had been submitted under Procedure Rule No. 9 by Councillor Jessie Milne.
“If” we go over to a Leader and Cabinet, will the role of Chairman go unchanged and undiminished? Will the Chairman still be regarded as the “First Citizen” of West Lindsey and will the Chairman still be a focus of Civic Pride? Will the Chairman still wear the chain of office as a symbol of their status? And will the Council still stand as a mark of respect for the office of Chairman?"
The Leader of the Council responded.
“Thank you for your question Cllr Milne. You will be aware that a review of the Council’s governance is underway and is being managed by the Governance and Audit Committee. There is no intention to change the role or the standing of the council Chairman and all of the potential arrangements recognise this role.”
Having heard the response, Councillor Jessie Milne then asked the following supplementary question: -
“How do you explain the picture that appears in the current edition of the County News, with the Leader and the Chief Executive seated side by side and the First Citizen standing behind them, with the Chain of Office obscured by the Leaders head? Isn’t this a clear demonstration of the path that this Council has taken, with the Leader and the Head of Paid Service working in partnership, with the symbol of local authority left in the background. In recent Council meetings, it has become difficult to distinguish between the political announcements of the Leader, and the Political announcements made by the Head of Paid Service. Could I ask for restoration of the democratic process in which the publicly elected members set the policies and monitor their implementation. Could I ask for a restoration of the norm in which elected membership is held responsible to the public and officers are held responsible to the elected membership. When I was first elected I was told that the public should see a clear distinction between the officers who are paid to deliver public services, and the councillors who are elected to represent the public interest. Over the last six years I have seen a complete changeover of senior management and a steady erosion of the member / officer relationship, as a Ward Member I can tell you that we are described as an officer-led Council. That is unfair to Ward Members and it is unfair to the locally recruited officers who have, and are, giving a lifetime of public service. Chairman it is time for the Political Leadership of the Council to accept its responsibilities and it is time for the Professional Management Team to recognise those responsibilities.
As our Chairman knows, the Royal British Legion has a motto it is “Service before Self”.
Yesterday was Remembrance Day, when we pay our respects to all the brave people who have given their lives for this Country, earlier on this year I was approached by Tony Worth, Her Majesty’s former Lord Lieutenant of Lincolnshire to ask if we West Lindsey would be prepared to support the “Iconic Spire” which sits proudly on Canwick Hill, his request was for £200,000 for tables, chairs etc for the Restaurant which they are presently building. £200,000 is just £1,000 less than we gave our Chief Executive a short while ago.
For that every single airfield in West Lindsey would be displayed in that building for the next 100 plus years. 750,000 people visited Lincolnshire last year from all over the world just to visit the airfields where their family, relations etc were during the war. These numbers are growing year on year thanks to the Spire. Think of the business that would bring to West Lindsey, restaurants, shops, bed and breakfast establishments and the hotel. Market Rasen would also benefit as there are a number of airfields around that area.
This request was turned down, I think it should be re-visited as we seem to have plenty of money to play with at the moment, and let members of this Council make the decision.
The Leader of Council responded, thanking Councillor Milne for the points she had raised and undertook to further investigate the circumstances and provide her with a full response.
A question had been submitted under Procedure Rule No. 9 by Councillor Owen Bierley.
“Firstly may I offer my congratulations to you
and the entire Leader and Chief Executive team for the truly
exceptional work you have done so far in bringing forward the
devolution proposals for Greater Lincolnshire? The starting point and the very short timescale
you had available makes your achievement even more
remarkable!
I refer to the six-week public consultation that was undertaken
during the summer (noting that 9% of the responses received were
from West Lindsey) and quote Cllr Ray Oxby, the Leader of North
East Lincolnshire Council, who said ‘The public share our
view that this is too great an opportunity not to
take’. How right he
is! Indeed 59.3% of respondents
supported the pursuit of these extra powers and funding, 73.1% said
that the ten Councils should be looking to work together to
prioritise and deliver economic growth, infrastructure and housing
across the area and 77.2% stated that we should be pursuing further
funding as a priority for Greater Lincolnshire.
During October each of the ten partner authorities debated and
voted on the same paper and set of resolutions regarding
devolution. Again, this is surely
unprecedented in our area? Members
will, of course, be aware that eight of the ten Councils in Greater
Lincolnshire supported the proposals, while in administrative
Lincolnshire six out of the seven second tier Councils, including
our own, supported them. I believe this
clearly demonstrates committed support for the principle of
devolution and provides ground for cautious optimism that an
agreement may yet be achievable that will enable the project to be
taken forward in a timely manner.
However, should it transpire that this is not possible, please can
you give an assurance that West Lindsey District Council will, at
the very least, take the opportunity to build on the discussions
already had with our counterparts, especially those to the north,
in order that we can work ever more collaboratively with them to
the benefit of all our residents and businesses?”
The Leader of the Council responded.
“Thank you for this question Cllr Bierley. I agree that we have made remarkable progress as partners over the last 12 months. I can assure you that this Council will make every effort to maintain the spirit of collaboration with our new found friends that this work has engendered.
This type of collaboration is not new on this ever crowded planet which appears to shrink annually due to merged businesses and new structures becoming more attractive via the enormous strides forward with technology and communication.
You quite appropriately mentioned percentages of people who supported the desire to pursue extra powers and further funding for Greater Lincolnshire with improved partnership working and as an example we will be supporting the North Lincolnshire desire to extend the Lincolnshire AONB up to the River Humber.
Today the Devolution score is 8-2. Eight councils for, Two against. If this score was the FA Cup final, it would be regarded as a resounding win.
If the score was a committee vote at West Lindsey, you would say it had very strong support.
Therefore I say devolution and collaboration is very much alive.
Thank you for your question Councillor Bierley”
Councillor Young raised a point of information, seeking clarity as to whether the 10 authorities did in fact debate and vote on the same paper and set of resolutions regarding devolution. The Chief Executive undertook to provide clarification to Councillor Young outside of the meeting.
A question had been submitted under Procedure Rule No. 9 by Councillor Trevor Young.
“The proposed works on Beaumont Street Gainsborough to build a new Lidl Store is due to start early December. The works will include demolishing the large multi storey car park?
Clearly this will cause disruption and the loss of car parking
provision is going to have a further negative impact on town centre
businesses during the main Christmas shopping period.
Could the Chairman of Prosperous Communities Committee please
inform Members what plans are in place to ensure the town has
adequate car parking provision whilst the new store is being
built?
Currently in Gainsborough the number of empty shops is at
it’s highest level ever. There is
a risk of further shops closing if Christmas trading is
affected?
The current WLDC car parking strategy is flawed and simply does not
work, on a daily basis all the main car parks are full of permit
holders.
As a Council we constantly discuss how the town centre needs to
improve, it will not be achieved without adequate car parking to
support it.
With the loss of the multi storey car park there is an urgent need
to review the current situation?
I welcome your response?”
The Chairman of the Prosperous Communities Committee, Councillor Sheila Bibb, responded.
“Cllr. Young, thank you for raising this issue tonight. As you are aware, Gainsborough Growth is important to all of us and with the closure of the Beaumont Street carpark to allow for the construction of the new Lidl store it has been necessary to look further at the provision of parking within Gainsborough. Looking forward, Lidl have committed to providing free parking on their site at Beaumont Street for all town centre shoppersfor up to two hours.
Until this provision is in place, particularly in view of the run up to Christmas and New Year, the following actions have been put in place:
· Staff will not park at key town centre sites other than Bridge Street, and this will be closely monitored
· We are also asking staff to lift share or use public transport where possible
· We have identified parking elsewhere, for example Trinity Arts Centre
· We have ceased issuing of any new permits and are working closely with Partner’s such as Marshall’s Yard
· Long term we are also negotiating with various other site owners to secure further sites closer to the Town Centre which can be used for parking.
As you will see from this response, provision is being made for the both the immediate and longer term parking needs and the situation will be kept under review.
As I stated at the beginning, the growth and improvementof Gainsborough are of great importance and we welcome all additional positive suggestions. Please feel free to pass these to Mark Sturgess, Chief Operating Officer.”
A question had been submitted under Procedure Rule No. 9 by Councillor Lesley Rollings.
“The society we live in increasingly depends on high quality internet and mobile phone access to carry out basic tasks in our everyday life. For some time now, the residents of West Lindsey in villages and rural areas have suffered poor broadband and mobile phone provision. In some parts of the Scotter and Blyton ward, the broadband speed dwindles to nothing. In some parts it simply isn't available at all. In the centre of Scotter, a thriving village with numerous businesses, pubs, food outlets and a hotel, there is virtually no mobile phone coverage.
I would like to ask the Chairman of the Prosperous Communities
committee firstly to give residents an accurate update on progress
on improved broadband and mobile phone provision and secondly to
ask whether she would be prepared to ask the District council to
carry out an accurate, up to date audit of provision across the
district. With accurate information,
would it then be possible for the district council to hold
telecommunications companies to account, demanding that they invest
in high speed broadband across all our district? It is absolutely
essential that information is retrieved from residents and that we
do not rely on information from phone companies which often bears
no resemblance to the reality that many people have to put up
with. We want people to come to West
Lindsey to live and work, yet we hear of sales of houses falling
through due to poor broadband speeds and landlords unable to rent
out properties due to a lack of broadband. Is it time for this
council to take the fight for better services to another level? I
think so.”
The Chairman of the Prosperous Communities Committee, Councillor Sheila Bibb, responded.
“The current Broadband provision has been driven by the BDUK activity of which Phase 1 ended earlier this year. We also have a wifi provider active in our district which enable some areas to receive service where BT cannot provide.
There are however two supported schemes currently available to residents in West Lindsey:
· BT offer a Community Fibre Partnership grant which enables communities that fall into the 5% of the UK excluded from the national fibre broadband rollout plans to access upto £20,000 towards the cost of fibre infrastructure where it includes the school; and
· Quickline have subscribed to the better broadband subsidy scheme which means residents could be eligible for a free connection. To be eligible their current speed needs to be less than 2mbps.
The Prosperous Communities Committee is receiving an update on coverage and current position with BDUK and Onlincolnshire at its next meeting.
With regards to Mobile coverage, in 2013/14 the Challenge and Improvement Committee held a working group to look at what could be done to help improve the situation and at that time reliance was placed on a Government backed scheme called the Mobile Infrastructure Project (MIP). This project was wound up as scheduled earlier this calendar year however it was recognised by the then Digital Economy Minister - Ed Vaisey that it had not been a success.
It may be time for the Council to look again at this issue and I will ask Officers to report to Prosperous Communities Committee. ”
Having heard the response, Councillor Lesley Rollings then asked the following supplementary question: -
I have been speaking at length with the County Council over this matter and there is definitely disagreement over the current position in what BDUK and the Government are and are not allowed to do. What is clear is we are in a contract with a company that we were advised by the County Council not to enter into. From my understanding as a District Council we sought clarification from the County as to whether what we were doing was legal and whilst it was not deemed illegal, we were advised to not continue, and I understand there is an e-mail stating such.
Councillor Giles McNeill, interjected using Council Procedure rule 12.5. He advised the Council did receive legal advice but not on the basis as outlined and as such that was an unfair untrue statement.
Councillor Mrs Rollings continued stating that what was clear was that the rest of Lincolnshire around 94-95% were now covered and had access to super speed broadbrand averaging around 24mbs. However this was not the case for West Lindsey and our current provider was not in a position to offer residents such a service. She considered it time they were challenged to offer a better service to the District residents. In her ward the provider was hardly known and advertisement had been poor. If a connection could be established it was simply left. She welcomed the commitment given by the Chairman of the Prosperous Communities Committee to review the project and hoped this would look at the contract, in order that the company could be held to account. What did the contract mandate them to do, what were their obligations? We were strongly advised at the time to enter into this arrangement. I want to know how we are now going to work with this company to get a better service for our residents as it is clear big improvements need to be made.
In response the Chairman of Prosperous Communities Committee advised that a full report would be submitted to the Prosperous Communities which would hopefully answer all of the questions Members had.
Councillor Mrs Brockway, indicated that she believed the position was well established, particularly regarding state Aid Rules. That the Council could not bind commercial companies and of developments with other companies showing interest in the District.
Councillor Mrs Brockway was thanked for her information but it was ruled that questions were not for debate.