To receive any questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.
Minutes:
Mrs Miller referring to item 6 (Car Park Working Group Report) asked the Cabinet why they were taking away the half hour of free parking. She explained that animals produced more methane gas than cars did carbon monoxide which was far more damaging for the environment. She felt that the town had been destroyed by the introduction of coffee shops, takeaways and salons. She disputed the claim that 30 minutes was not enough time for people to shop and gave examples of what people could achieve with 30 minutes free parking. She stated that the Council was being prejudiced towards Council shops by taking away the free parking facility. She said that the Cabinet were going to rob the public of this free parking privilege and that they should be ashamed. Cars equal shoppers and voters.
Mr Quinn referring to agenda item 4 (referring to the previous public question time and minutes of the previous meeting) and item 8 – (Financial Monitoring) had 2 questions.
Firstly 2 months ago in June, when the work programme for 3 Rivers was on the agenda, I asked the Cabinet whether they might wish to consider changing the aims of the work programme. The response was given by the Deputy Chief Executive. Last month I pointed out that I had not received an answer directly from the Cabinet and made comments on the previous response given by the Deputy Chief Executive. A further response from the Deputy Chief Executive has been published with the minutes. His view is that the aims of 3 Rivers were agreed when the Company was formed, more than two years ago, and that the status quo should continue without Cabinet making any changes.
I am back today to point out, with the greatest respect, that I have still not received a direct answer from Cabinet to my original question. It is my understanding that the Cabinet can ask for changes to the proposed programme of work. When I asked my question, I gave reasons why they might wish to do so. As the 3 Rivers work programme is not on the agenda for this meeting tonight, can I now ask:
1. Will the Cabinet please reconsider my original June question when the 3 Rivers work programme is next on the agenda? (Can I ask that the Leader, not the Deputy Chief Executive answers this question please).
Secondly, the figures I gave to the last meeting for the cost of the HRA of the Burlescombe development are those given in reports to Members and in the annual accounts. These indicated a considerable overspend of HRA money. The Deputy Chief Executive, in his written response gives the actual cost to the HRA for the development by stating that the expenditure reported was actually offset by a £210k grant contribution from Homes England. Had the grant been tied to the spends in the reports, in the way this response has done, then the true net cost to the HRA could have been shown and a budget underspend recognised. I think it is a pity that the actual cost of this development to the Council was not made clear to Members, or the public until the publication of the written response to me.
2. In future financial reports, where grant funding is used for specific projects, could this be clearly shown and the actual net cost to the Council of the project be reported to members?
The Leader stated in response to the first question: that the Cabinet would consider the request when the next 3 Rivers work programme was delivered to the Cabinet in February.
The Deputy Chief Executive response to the second question was yes, he could do that in the future.