Agenda item

In accordance with the Constitution, a Member may ask the Leader, 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.

 

Eighteen (18) questions have been received at the time of publication. All confirmed questions will be circulated after the deadline.

 

Deadline for questions – Thursday 28 November

Nineteen questions from Members had been received and they were taken in the order that they were received.

 

Councillor Cliff raised a point of order in relation to the 20-minute time limit for questions from Members. In response, the Monitoring Officer stated that the 20-minute time limit is a Constitutional requirement which seeks to ensure that Council meetings take place in an orderly way and that all parts of Council business have sufficient time devoted to them.

 

Question 1

Councillor Carter asked the Leader the following question.

 

During the election and discussion between the Independent and Labour groups, there were promises to change the Cabinet system and to make the process more open and productive. By the time we reach the next full Council meeting, it will be two years from those discussions. Can the Leader please give me an update on the progress of this.

 

In response, the Leader stated that last year the administration made a commitment to establish a more inclusive and collaborative Council, and invited the LGA to support the review. Earlier this year, Members discussed the outcome of that process at an all Member workshop, where the value of the approach taken was recognised by Members across the Council. It was agreed that the approach should be formalised within the Constitution. That work has continued over the summer, alongside other important workstreams like administering the General Election, and the Boundary Commission Review. The Leader stated that the work is now nearing completion and the Constitutional Review Working Group would shortly be considering the final proposal. This would ensure the Council maintains a clear and accountable governance, and a strengthen scrutiny function, whilst formalising the more inclusive approach Members want to see. 

 

Councillor Carter opted to ask a supplementary question and asked the Leader had the changes produced any benefits and had they saved any money.

 

In response, the Leader stated that more Members had been involved with the decision-making process and good policy had been formed. Money had been saved in respect to special responsibility allowances, as since the administration took office in May 2023, there have only been five members of the Cabinet and previously there were six.

 

Question 2

Councillor Thwaites asked the Leader the following question.

 

In November the Cabinet agreed a series of changes, including price increases, to the Melton Borough Council controlled car parking within the Borough. Can the Leader please explain what these changes are exactly, why were they necessary and what was considered to reduce the impact on both those who work or visit, and need to use the car parks?

 

In response, the Leader stated that following a period of five years where car parking charges did not rise, in November Cabinet agreed to a below inflation increase, as part of its regular review of fees and charges. These increases are necessary to maintain our car parks, the enforcement service and other related issues. The alternative would have been to reduce other services to subsidise the parking and traffic management functions. Cabinet Members considered a range of options and built in measures to maintain free parking at evening and weekends, and for those car parks where no charges are currently made. Cabinet also increased the provision of free parking bays and have offered permits to the BID to support local businesses. In getting the balance right, members of the administration spoke with numerous residents and businesses.

 

Councillor Thwaites opted to ask a supplementary question and asked whether the Council could better promote the use of weekly and monthly season tickets.

 

In response, the Leader stated that the Council would look to better advertise such season tickets.

 

Question 3

Councillor Pritchett asked the Portfolio Holder for Town Centre, Growth and Prosperity the following question.

 

Can the Portfolio Holder for the Town Centre, Growth & Prosperity please tell me how many rural businesses they have visited as Portfolio Holder since April 2024?

 

In response, the Portfolio Holder for Town Centre, Growth and Prosperity stated that she has extensive engagement with businesses, both individually and also through business networks, the Council’s own inward investment roundtables and the BID. The Council’s flagship project at the Stockyard would support numerous rural businesses.

 

Councillor Pritchett opted to ask a supplementary question and asked whether the Portfolio Holder would consider periodic briefings every nine months to keep businesses and Members up to date.

 

In response, the Portfolio Holder stated that she would consider holding periodic briefings.

 

Question 4

Councillor Chubb asked the Portfolio Holder for Governance the following question.

 

Can the Portfolio Holder for Governance, Environment & Regulatory Services provide an answer to the following question? Considering Ed Miliband’s most recent policy to fast-track delivery of a renewable energy infrastructure, and the desire to take on those opposed to the roll out of solar farms, an increase in planning applications across the Country is imminent. Whilst the need for low carbon energy infrastructure is needed, these schemes consume valuable farming land and can have a detrimental impact on the beauty of our countryside. Can you please confirm if Melton Borough Council has a distinct and robust policy to manage and guide the potential increase in solar farm applications?

 

In response, the Portfolio Holder stated that the Local Plan and other supplementary planning guidance together with national policy, produces the framework for accessing all applications. As you will be aware the Council is about to consult on a revised Local Plan, and new national planning policy is also expected imminently. Should it be necessary the Council will develop a specific policy for solar farms, but it is important to note that our current policies apply to applications of any type.

 

Councillor Chubb opted to ask a supplementary question and asked whether the Council would consider a similar policy like Rushcliffe Borough Council has on solar and wind farm applications.

 

In response, the Portfolio Holder stated that the Rushcliffe Borough Council policy is a strategic policy, as opposed to a policy on how to manage development management applications. She informed Members of the decision to refuse solar farm application in line with the policy, however the decision was overturned on appeal and the inspector gave the policy little weight. The Portfolio Holder has committed to continue to consult on the issue.

 

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 I. Atherton seconded the motion.

 

The vote was taken and was as follows:

For 10, Against 16, Abstentions 1

 

Pursuant to the Constitution, Chapter 3, Part 1, Procedure Rule 17.6, Councillors I. Atherton, Child and Gordon wished that their votes for the motion be recorded.

 

Pursuant to the Constitution, Chapter 3, Part 1, Procedure Rule 17.6, Councillor Allnatt wished that his vote against the motion be recorded.

 

As a consequence of the vote the motion fell.

 

Question 5

Councillor S. Orson asked the Portfolio Holder for Governance, Environmental and Regulatory Services the following question.

 

Considering the recent announcement by Melton Borough Council can the Portfolio Holder for Governance, Environment & Regulatory Services set out the improvements as key stakeholder our Parish Council’s should expect to see with the review of the planning service?

 

In response, the Portfolio Holder stated that, as the time for questions from Members had ended, she would provide a written response.

 

It was confirmed that all Members with questions unanswered would be provided with a written response.

 

At 8:59pm, upon the conclusion of this agenda item, Councillor Evans left the meeting and did not return.