To receive any questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.
Minutes:
The following questions were received from members of the public:
Mr Barry Warren
Question 1:
Within Willand Parish there are 9 play areas, 6 of which are managed by the Parish Council, either owned or under lease from MDDC. MDDC are contracted to carry out monthly safety inspections of the play equipment in the 6 areas and the Parish are invoiced twice yearly, 6 months in advance.
The table shows that for 2023/24 we paid £2,293.06 but we actually paid £1,841.26. [A considerable 24.5% difference.] The second invoice was more than the first as it appears the second had an additional site added and there was a rise in other charges of 16.89%.
Why is there a discrepancy between the figure shown in the table and what we actually paid?
Response from the Cabinet Member for Finance:
The bill for the period of April 2023 to September 2023 was £578.94 total amount £694.73 including VAT. The bill for the period of October 2023 to March 2024 was £955.44 total amount £1146.53 including VAT with the Chestnut drive play area added following completion of the lease to the Parish these reflect the sum quoted to the amount paid. The £2293.06 including VAT, the sum quoted in Cabinet report was for October to March over a full year.
Question 2:
The new charges for 2024/25 are set out in the table but it is not clear how the charges will be worked out. Worked out one way we would be charged £2,764.80; a 50.15%% rise having already experienced a 16.89% rise for the second half of 2023/24.
There is a potential alternative way to work out the costs and Willand inspections cost would be £3369.60 an 83% rise on the previous year. We are unclear as to which system will be used.
How are the charges to be worked out?
What are MDDC actually expecting Willand Parish Council to pay for safety inspections for play equipment for the whole of 2024/25 for monthly safety inspections of play equipment covering all 6 sites?
Response from the Cabinet Member for Finance:
The revision to the proposed fee structure provides greater equity across the Parishes, the forecast cost £3369.00 as calculation includes the Chestnut drive play area the other partial reason for the increase. Officers of the Council will contact the Parish Clerk to discuss the changes in the fee structure.
Question 3:
It is stated that if approved by Cabinet these charges will be implemented as of 1 April 2024 but we are having to set our precepts now. We are unaware of any communication with the Parishes on this issue.
How does this action fit with the stated intention of this administration to work more closely with Parishes?
If one looks at recommendation 2, what will be put in place for timely discussion with Parishes in order that they may look elsewhere for the service if needs be before having to set their precepts?
Response from the Cabinet Member for Finance:
The Fees were published a soon as practical and three months prior to be implemented, if approved the council will engaged with each parish affected
Response from the Leader:
Mid Devon District Council has a State of District debate this month to engage more with Parish Council. This is the first year of administration and have the intention to work closely with Parishes and is part of the corporate plan to engage more.
Mr Nick Quinn
Question 1:
On 19 July 2023, Full Council passed Motion 593, which included a commitment that “this Council should fully review all leisure pricing in an open and transparent way by conducting a review of pricing through the appropriate Policy Development Group before making recommendations to Cabinet in the usual way for implementation from 1st April 2024 (2024-2025) financial year……..”.
The consideration of leisure pricing by the Community Policy Development Group, was not the ‘open and transparent’ review required by the Council. At their October 2023 meeting, after excluding the press and public, the PDG just took the fees and charges that were proposed in an unpublished Officer report and recommended that Cabinet approve them.
In view of this fact, will this Cabinet please refuse to ‘note’; accept; approve; or otherwise allow for implementation, the new leisure fees and charges for 2024/25 as set out in Appendix 2 – and ask the Community Policy Development Group to undertake a totally Open and Transparent review of leisure pricing - as required by
Council Motion 593?
Response from the Cabinet Member for Community and Leisure:
Whilst the motion as passed requested an ‘open and transparent approach’ when setting fees and charges for our Leisure service, there is a legal exemption: “Charge Strategies are Commercially Sensitive which are Exempt from publication under paragraph 3, Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) as it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).”
In 2023/24 the Council appointed a specialist Leisure consultancy company to look at the service before any fee changes were considered. The outcome of their extensive report was that our fees could be increased when compared to the market locally and nationally. The external report formed the basis of the commercially sensitive report presented to the PDG in October 2023 as required by Motion 593 point 2.
That report remains commercially sensitive and therefore exempt from publication. The fees recommended by the PDG also help to reduce the taxpayer subsidy which Motion 593 point 4 required the Council to take into account.
All 42 elected members had visibility of the proposals and the opportunity to speak, comment and challenge at the PDG and previous cabinet meeting when discussed, and thorough scrutiny of the proposals was provided.
The charges were published and open to public scrutiny and comment 3 months before implementation. Our charges remain very competitive in the Leisure sector and the number of Mid Devon Leisure memberships is increasing.
Mr Adam Pilgrim statement
You will have seen my message to you, dated 15th December 2023, drawing your attention to the historical agreement that the Canal would be funded equally by Devon County and Mid Devon District Councils.
This had followed the 1971 agreement between Devon County, Tiverton District and Tiverton Borough Councils.
The Canal Manager, Mark Baker, has already clearly outlined the benefits enjoyed by Mid Devon’s residents and the consequences of reducing the funding of the Grand Western Canal. Cutting the Canal’s funding will downgrade the high standards that have been achieved over a number of years and will be extremely difficult and costly to recover.
You should not follow the PDG’s recommendation to cut MDDC’s contribution to the Grand Western Canal by a further 15% since it’s based on a false premise; that MDDC’s contribution to the Canal is a Grant rather than an Obligation.
Following this recommendation would be an unsound decision.
1971 was the original Agreement; 50% of the canal’s costs to be borne by Devon County Council and 50% to be borne by the two local Authorities; Tiverton District and Tiverton Borough Councils.
In 1974 after the District and Borough Councils combined to form Mid Devon District Council it was confirmed that the new Council would take on the Obligations of its predecessors.
On 29th January 1974 the Amenities and Countryside Committee resolved "that the cost be shared equally between the County Council and Tiverton District Council”
In March 1988 Mid Devon District Council’s Environment & Leisure Committee’s meeting noted that
"The funding of the work, both capital and revenue, to the Grand Western Canal is shared equally between Mid Devon District Council and Devon County Council."
The two authorities' contributions on the same basis was confirmed by the Mid Devon Partnership Committee in 14th March and in April 1998.
There doesn’t appear to have been any formal dissolution of this arrangement.
Consequently, to execute the PDG’s recommendation would perpetuate and compound MDDC’s evasion of its historical obligation to the detriment of MDDC’s “Jewel in its Crown”.