Agenda item

In accordance with the Constitution, a Member may ask the Leader, the Chair of the Council or a Committee Chair, a question on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties or which affects the Borough.

 

Two questions were received at the time of publication. All confirmed questions will be circulated after the deadline.

 

Deadline for questions – Wednesday 5 February

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

 

Question 1

Councillor Thwaites asked the Leader the following question.

 

The extra care facility Gretton Court used to be a jewel in the crown of services that MBC jointly delivered to our Borough elderly. Can the Leader please explain the planned increases to charges at Gretton Court and whether we will carry out a full and robust review of the services, costs and charges at Gretton Court before any increases are applied so that this Council can ensure it is providing the quality and value of service that we would wish to deliver at the correct price.

 

In response, the Leader stated that Councillor Thwaites made a good point about the cost impact on our older residents to deliver an extra care service. There are legitimate costs for Gretton Court as a housing service and for the care residents receive.

 

Charges are reflective of actual costs to deliver services to Gretton Court. Influencing factors on charges to deliver these services include utility costs, cost of food and inflation. Following changes to the service offer commissioned by Leicestershire County Council, a review of support was undertaken, and a new wellbeing service was implemented last year. The Council’s teams worked with partner agencies to design the wellbeing support offer and also sought the advice of an external specialist to ensure clarity and accuracy on the service elements that can be met by housing benefit for eligible residents. Feedback on the support provided by the staff is positive.

 

Separate to the budget papers, a review of charges and service provision of meals at Gretton court is ongoing. As this review has not yet concluded and will now form part of a wider review of options for older person housing in the borough, the Leader could confirm that he was considering two options on meal charges for 2025/26: either to cap the increase at 10% or to freeze it at 2024/25 levels. Both will have a financial impact on the HRA and would effectively mean that the HRA (and therefore tenants) would be subsidising these cost pressures. To cap the increase at 10% would cost just under £6,000 and to freeze it entirely would cost £23,000 in lost income. The Leader added that he would come to a conclusion on the best approach over the next few days and it will be dealt with by way of delegated decision as previously agreed.

 

The Council can continue to be proud of Gretton Court, but consideration must be given to a strategic approach to determine the most appropriate future arrangements to meet the needs of the Borough’s ageing population.

 

The reality is that the Council cannot achieve the same economies of scale as much larger registered provider counterparts who deliver extra care housing at scale, and as such, a full review is necessary. Rather than looking at each aspect of the service in isolation, the Cabinet wish to see a full review of older persons housing needs to ensure that Gretton Court can continue to be a housing option of choice and one that is affordable to tenants and can support independence of older residents for many years to come. The Council’s teams have commenced this work with the support of a specialist external organisation with expertise in older persons housing.

 

Councillor Thwaites opted to ask a supplementary question and asked the Leader how can the Council guarantee that the meal provides value. In response, the Leader stated that the Council can assess this during the review and recognised that it is just as much about quality as it is about price.

 

Question 2

Councillor Thwaites asked the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Finance, Property and Resources the following question.

 

There has been a recent spate of anti-social behaviour (ASB) including burglaries of local businesses in town, damage and theft from vehicles in the Borough. Although it is not entirely the responsibility of MBC can you please update Council of MBCs involvement in dealing with crime. How are we MBC and the local Police working together and what measures and processes have we together implemented to prevent crime and ASB.

 

In response, the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Finance, Property and Resources stated that it is really disappointing that Melton had suffered a series of issues over recent months including the retail thefts in the town centre. These crimes had a significant impact not only on the town’s local businesses but also on the feeling of safety and security across the community. Proactive action was taken including multiple arrests, and the Portfolio Holder stated that after determined work from Leicestershire Police, several offenders are now in custody.

 

The Safer Melton Partnership is proactive, effective and alert to the issues facing the community and businesses and as expected, the Partnership and Leicestershire Police work collaboratively not just to tackle issues of crime and ASB, but also on longer term protective and preventative measures.

 

In addition to encouraging and supporting businesses to access resilience measures such as CCTV and the DISC app, which are funded by Safer Melton Partnership, the Portfolio Holder explained that she recently chaired a meeting with local businesses affected by the recent break ins, alongside the Council’s Safer Communities Team and the Local Police. This was very well attended, with many businesses expressing not only their fear and frustration about the crimes they had been victims of but a willingness and desire to access support, information and measures to prevent future break ins. The Partnership were able to extend an invitation to the PCC’s Office and to the local MP, Ed Argar, and that he and the Deputy PCC were able to attend and hear the views and needs of businesses directly.

 

Through the Council’s work with the Melton BID, many more businesses now have access to the SMART radio scheme, and the Council does all that it can to explore what other support can be made available via the Safer Melton Partnership and Police and Crime Commissioners Fund. The Council have also made further changes and enhancements to the town’s CCTV monitoring arrangements, with proactive monitoring being carried out by West Northamptonshire Council and a strong link between them and the police locally, enhanced further by the provision of a screen within the station itself and a direct communication link between them.

 

Members would also be aware that the Council have had significant recent outcome with multiple closure orders on properties within the town that were linked to a county lines and associated drug and criminal activity. This is just one example so the work that takes place day in, day out to safeguard and support communities: something taken seriously and that communities are encouraged to report crime and ASB to the Council and the police.

 

Members may also wish to note that the Scrutiny Committee has a specific role and remit to scrutinise our work on Crime and Disorder: as such, the work of the Safer Melton Partnership and the Council’s teams is reported on an annual basis to the Scrutiny Committee, usually as a collaboration with Leicestershire Police. The Portfolio Holder is very happy to meet with and brief any Member separately on this work, and to provide a link to the most recent report and Scrutiny meeting where this was last discussed.

 

Councillor Thwaites opted not to ask a supplementary question.

 

Question 3

Councillor J. Orson asked the Leader the following question.

 

Would the Leader agree that the Cabinet decision last November to amend the current Off Street Car Parking Order is beyond the powers granted under the Road Traffic Regulation Act (1984), The Traffic Management Act (2004) and all other enabling legislation, and that the proposed changes require a new Order to be made as they extend beyond mere changes to charging?

 

In response, the Leader stated that he did not agree with the statement. 

 

Councillor J. Orson opted not to ask a supplementary question.