In accordance with
the Constitution, a Member may ask the Leader, a Portfolio Holder or
the Chair of the Council, a question on any matter in relation to which the
Council has powers or duties or which affects the Borough.
Seven questions
have been received at the time of publication. All confirmed questions will be
circulated after the deadline.
Deadline for questions – Thursday 12 September
Minutes:
Question 1
Councillor Lumley asked the
Leader the following question:
Can emergency funds be
transferred to the Corporate Property team, for this current financial year
(2024/25), to carry out essential maintenance works this winter on the Melton
Borough Council (MBC)-owned Mill Street, Melton Mowbray town area car park, a
stretch of footpath in the Country Park behind Redwood Avenue, town area
allotments, and key routeways around Thorpe Road cemetery, to name a few?
In
responding to the question, the Leader stated that he would address the
question in two parts: the drawing down of emergency funds and to allocate the
money to four specific tasks and one open ended area of expenditure.
The Leader clarified that, for the
avoidance of doubt, the Council does not maintain emergency funds per se. This
has been the case for some years due to financial constraints.
The Council does maintain reserves and
the Leader has summarised the regulations and procedures for drawing on
reserves in year on a separate note which has been tabled at the meeting.
In relation to the four specific tasks
(car park, footpath, cemetery & allotments), the Leader agrees that these
have been relatively neglected for some years. For the first three, the Leader
suggested that he, Councillor Lumley and his fellow Ward Councillor, Councillor
Glancy, look at these upon Councillor Glancy’s return. For allotments across
Melton, the Leader already mentioned his resolve to build on the work of
colleague Councillor Cox alongside the assistance from Melton Lions to improve
the situation.
The Leader added that for
the current financial year, budgets have been allocated and asset improvements
have been prioritised, including taking account of health and safety and risk.
The Leader added that if Councillor Lumley could provide a list of his specific
requests, then he would arrange for them to be assessed against the
prioritisation criteria in place. Should there be immediate risks or health and
safety requirements, officers would advise on any in year budgetary needs.
Officers can also assess the need and timing for other improvements works, for
consideration as part of future budget setting arrangements.
Pride in place matters to
the administration, but, resources need to be carefully managed and work is
ongoing to evaluate how best to allocate resources to enhance green and open
spaces. The Leaders stated that this would be done in a planned way and included
within budget and service plans rather than on an emergency basis.
Councillor Lumley did not
opt to ask a supplementary question.
Question 2
Councillor Lumley asked the
Leader the following question:
Can you (Leader) and senior
MBC officers urgently meet with senior East Midlands region officers of the
Environment Agency, to discuss the poor maintenance and improvement plan of
water courses around the town area, plus flooding management for this winter
and thereafter of water courses across the Borough?
In responding, the Leader
stated that all Members would be aware that the issue of flooding occupies a
significant amount of his time and the Council’s strategic thinking.
He reminded Council that the issue is
multi-layered and detailed including drainage of surface water, management of
sewage, fluvial flows, water retention on land, the water table below it and
clean water management for life, work at times of drought and water
contamination.
Most of the areas require long-term
planning and significant investment and responsibilities lie across several
agencies with the Environment Agency being just one.
The Leader informed Council he had a
short meeting with the Environment Agency’s Regional Senior Flood Risk Manager
and the Assets Performance Team Leader. The Leader took the opportunity to add
Councillor Lumley’s specific points to the agenda. The Leader raised a wide
range of strategic and practical issues of interest to all Ward Members
including those sitting on the Planning Committee. The discussion was
constructive all agreed further discussion, more information, meetings with
other Members and site visits as appropriate.
The Council’s Senior Planning Officer
and lead on matters flooding was unable to join the meeting because of the
Planning Appeal Inquiry.
Councillor Lumley did not
opt to ask a supplementary question.
Question 3
Councillor Butcher asked the
Leader the following question:
Can I ask the Leader to
please lobby for a fairer business rates system?
We can not control rents,
but we could lobby for a fairer business rates system.
The Labour government
mentioned this in their manifesto. Business wise, especially as we have a lot
of independents, it is vital to survival for business in our town and borough.
With a smoking ban being
talked about, this will have a big hit on hospitality, and the need for a more
sensible business rates will be the difference between survival or closure. As
Melton is the rural capital for drink & food, this will have a big impact?
In
responding, the Leader stated that he is always willing to lobby, and often do, any
government on any issue relevant to the local or wider community, however the
Leader reminded Members that the art of lobbying is to have a well thought out
proposal.
The
Leader added that there already exists a number of business rates relief
schemes which may benefit independent businesses, the most
relevant being;
· retail, hospitality and
leisure rate relief which provides eligible businesses 75% relief for 2024/25
up to a maximum of £110k cash cap limit per business. As such, this benefits
smaller businesses by a greater degree;
· small business rates relief
of 100% for eligible businesses with a rateable value of £12k or less. For
business with a rateable value of between £12,001 and £15,000 the rate of
relief will go down gradually from 100% to 0%. With limits for businesses with
more than one property, again benefiting independent businesses more;
·
rural rate relief of 100% for eligible businesses operating
as the only shop, petrol station, public house or post office in an eligible
rural area.
The Leader added that it is
widely acknowledged in the sector that the business rates system is due an
overhaul but it is a complex task. The Council would continue to highlight the
issues arising from the funding of local councils generally including the
business rates system which is an intrinsic part of this.
Councillor Butcher opted to
ask a supplementary question and asked the Leader whether he would continue to
lobby for the opening of the competition law to the public contract schemes to
enable small business to participate, as outlined in the Leader’s manifesto.
In response, the Leader
stated that he would read the relevant point within the manifesto and respond
to Councillor Butcher.
Question 4
Councillor J Orson asked the
Leader the following question:
Can I remind Council it is
circa ten months since Melton Residents were informed by way of a MBC press
release that ...
“Following positive work
with health partners at the ICB, it is clear there is a compelling opportunity
to explore the delivery of Melton Mowbray’s second GP surgery by utilising
existing space within the council’s Parkside offices.
Whilst it is still subject
to full viability assessment, this is our preferred option and we are now
working closely with ICB colleagues to fully assess the costs and implications
associated with it.”
Can the Leader now confirm
work will start to convert Parkside to a Doctors Surgery before April 2026?
In response, the Leader
stated that work to develop a fully costed and designed business case for
co-location of the additional GP practice in Melton continues. This work is in
conjunction with integrated care board (ICB) health partners.
Before proceeding with any
development it is imperative that there is a proposal that meets both the ICB’s
and our the Council’s operational needs, as well as being affordable for all
parties. The work is complex and Officers are not yet ready to report on the
outcome of that work but hope to do so in the coming months.
If an affordable and
deliverable business case could be established, then it would be presented
formally to Cabinet and Council for full consideration as required.
In response, the Leader explained he couldn’t confirm that
work would commence before April 2026.
Question 5
Councillor J Orson asked the
Leader the following question.
Can the Leader please
confirm the identity of the specialist(s) engaged by MBC to develop a case for
the proposed GP surgery co-located at Parkside and at what cost to the Council?
In response, the Leader
stated that Melton Council and colleagues from the local Integrated Care Board
(ICB) have been working together on the options for Parkside. Costs have been
shared with the ICB under a Memorandum of Understanding and are in the region
of £33k for the council. Any specialist support that’s required has been
procured through the ICB.
The Leader stated that he does not know
and does not need to know the names of specialists working under these
arrangements. The specialists are design architects, Quantity Surveyors or
similar, checking structural loading tolerances, fire safety, lift requirements,
electrical and mechanical specifications, etc. They will be looking at the sort
of issues and, crucially, to establish whether the proposition is doable
practically and financially.
If Councillor Orson insists on knowing
names, then the Council would need to ask the agreement of the ICB, and the
individuals concerned.
Regarding the Council’s financial
contribution, the is not new money. It is essentially under the umbrella of the
Asset Development Programme which was agreed under the previous administration
and drawn from the £500,000 grant sourced by Local Enterprise Programme. This
money supports the development and implementation of proposals for all Council
assets.
As Members were approaching
the time allowed for Members’ questions, the Mayor proposed that Procedure Rule
13.7 of the Meetings General Procedure Rules should be suspended for the rest
of the meeting so that the time limit of 20 minutes for Members’ questions can
be exceeded. Councillor Child seconded the motion.
RESOLVED
Council
Suspended Procedure Rule
13.7 of the Meetings General Procedure Rules for the remainder of the meeting.
(Unanimous)
Councillor J Orson opted to
ask a supplementary question and asked the Leader whether he would let Members
know the individuals and companies involved.
In response, the Leader
explained that it was not in his gift to do so but would seek further advice
from the Monitoring Officer.
Question 6
Councillor Browne asked the
Portfolio Holder for Corporate Finance, Property and Resources the following
question:
Can the Portfolio Holder of
Finance please confirm for the public record the cost of agency staff incurred
in financial years 2022/23 and 2023/2024?
In responding, the Portfolio
Holder stated that it would be helpful to clarify exactly what is meant by
‘agency’ spend, as this can include a range of different things including
project managers, interim cover for vacancies and temporary grant funded posts.
As per the comprehensive
report provided to Scrutiny Committee in July 2022, the Council has a
sophisticated and comprehensive approach to managing its resources flexibly and
getting the balance right between a strong core team, and utilising external skills
and capacity to support our busy agenda.
To respond to the specific
question, the figures in the ‘agency’ budget code are £330,008 for 2022/23 and
£689,140 for 2023/24.
In terms of the difference
between years, there were a number of factors that caused such an increase and
which demonstrate the justifiable reasons why costs are incurred:
1)
The Monitoring officer role was vacant for a long period of
time, along with a number of posts in the legal services team, where interim
posts were utilised. These have now been recruited to.
2)
We were operating a shared senior officer arrangement with
Harborough for our waste and environmental service team, which was funded
through this budget. Again this has now ended and our new Waste and
Environmental Services manager has recently started with the Council.
3)
A number of vacancies in development control which needed to
be covered but which have now been recruited to.
4)
Welland Procurement had a number of staff leaving at the same
time which needed a service rebuild.
These costs were necessary
to ensure the correct knowledge and expertise in these service areas, and also
recognise the challenges across the sector of recruiting and retaining in a
number of specialist service areas. All costs were managed within the budget
envelope and indeed taking the budgets for agency and salary costs together in
2023/24 there was a net underspend of £190k for the year after accounting for
these costs. So the Council’s resources continue to be managed effectively and
in the right way.
Councillor Browne opted to
ask a supplementary question and asked that, considering the amount of
vacancies and the ability to recruit to those vacancies, is the Council not big
enough to continue in its present form and should look towards a partnership or
become a part of a unitary authority.
In response, the Portfolio
Holder explained that the Council have recruited to those vacancies. As the
Council spend a significant amount on salaries, it was right that time is taken
to consider how vacancies are filled. Members were reminded that the total
salary bill is £8m and that agency spend constitutes only 8% of the bill.
In relation to the question
as to whether the Council is big enough to continue, then a written answer
would be provided.
Question 7
Councillor Gordon asked the
Leader the following question:
I have concerns as to
whether Parkside is the best location for a second surgery in Melton Mowbray
since there is a possibility of security breaches by patients, along with the
possibility of infection of Council Staff who come into contact with patients,
especially for Council Staff that have to use the one and only lift. Does the
Leader agree that St Mary’s Hospital would be ideally suited as a location for
a second surgery, as it also has a Physiotherapy Department, x-ray machines and
carries out blood tests?
In responding, the Leader
stated that discussions have been ongoing for some time with health partners
regarding the most appropriate location for a second GP surgery. Some of your
points appear to be more about issues regarding co-location with the Council,
rather than the geographical location of a second surgery and on that basis,
the Leader made the following points:
· Co-location with partner
organisations is not new – any such arrangement would require agreement on the
specific arrangements and protocols in place to enable partners to co-exist.
·
Changes to the Parkside building would be required to
accommodate a second GP surgery and, as you’d expect, discussions are ongoing
about the best configuration to meet the needs of partner organisations,
customers and patients. This would include plans regarding the layout and
accessibility of the building, security and health and safety.
Officer will ensure that
Councillor Gordon’s points are considered as part of the project.
Regarding the suitability of
St Mary’s Hospital as a site for a second GP surgery, ultimately the choice
about where to locate a GP practice is a matter for health partners and their
preferred option is to work with the Council on co-location at Parkside, which
the administration is happy to continue exploring with them.
Councillor Gordon opted to
ask a supplementary question and asked could the Leader ask if the surgery was
located at Parkside then would the Council have to relocate the offices, if
there was another pandemic.
In response, the Leader
confirmed that he would raise the issue and provide a response when he had an
answer.