Agenda item

Questions to the Chair, Members of the Cabinet, Chairs of any Committee or Sub-Committee, Members of the Fire Authority, Police and Crime Panel or the Tees Valley Combined Authority Scrutiny Committee, for which notice has been given.

 

Question 1: Question from Councillor Learoyd to Councillor Nightingale, Chair of Corporate Resources and Governance Scrutiny & Improvement Committee.

 

“On the 27th June 2024, I asked you why you hadn't responded to the Ridgewell Report into Teesworks and STDC. As a reminder you were a scrutiny member of the council at the TVCA during the period in question. You read an answer to my question and it resembled a legal reply. When I then sent a F.O.I. request to see who had written the reply for you, it was a lawyer at the TVCA.

 

Why did you not feel comfortable answering the question in your own words?”

 

Question 2: Question from Councillor Learoyd to Councillor Earl, Cabinet Member for Health, Welfare and Housing

 

“A group of doctors congregated outside Newcastle Civic Centre on 14 September to protest against your administration's 400000 tonne incinerator plan. They warned the incinerator "would have multiple negative health impacts especially in an area which already faces significant public health challenges." You've openly supported the incinerator in this council chamber and defended it in a previous question I have posed to you.

 

Which doctor is correct, you or those doctors who want to see an end to the incinerator?”

 

Question 3: Question from Councillor Learoyd to Councillor Morgan, Chair of Governance Committee:

 

“An FOI from 25th July 2024 served on the Council's Monitoring Officer reveals an interesting thread.

 

It reveals a Councillor from the political group that you lead quizzing the Monitoring Officer if there was enough evidence to take another councillor to a code of conduct hearing. The Monitoring Officer, rather rash in his approach on this occasion, engaged in the conversation. Worryingly, you were then sent the email by the councillor as though you were part of the plotting.

 

 

A previous FOI showed you having an email exchange with the Managing Director regarding a desire to remove a councillor from a chairmanship.

 

These revelatory FOIs question your standing and ability to act as Chair of the Governance Committee, and the fiduciary responsibility it holds.

 

Considering the evidence your willingness to be involved in skullduggery and vendetta, why should any Councillor in this chamber trust that the code of conduct is being administered with any reasonableness and neutrality?”

 

Question 4: Question from Councillor Learoyd to Councillor Smith Chair of  Regulatory Committee:

 

“On 25th July 2024 I asked you if you have ever had pressure put on you, while a member or as Chairman of the Regulatory Committee, to accept a planning application due to the potential cost of an appeal if an application were rejected. Examining the minutes from the meeting, you avoided answering the question. Why was this?”

 

Question 1: Question from Councillor Learoyd to Councillor Morgan, Chair of Governance Committee:

 

“An FOI from 25th July 2024 served on the Council's Monitoring Officer reveals an interesting thread.

 

It reveals a Councillor from the political group that you lead quizzing the Monitoring Officer if there was enough evidence to take another Councillor to a code of conduct hearing. The Monitoring Officer, rather rash in his approach on this occasion, engaged in the conversation. Worryingly, you were then sent the email by the Councillor as though you were part of the plotting.

 

A previous FOI showed you having an email exchange with the Managing Director regarding a desire to remove a Councillor from a chairmanship.

 

These revelatory FOI’s question your standing and ability to act as Chair of the Governance Committee, and the fiduciary responsibility it holds.

 

Considering the evidence your willingness to be involved in skullduggery and vendetta, why should any Councillor in this chamber trust that the code of conduct is being administered with any reasonableness and neutrality?”

 

Councillor Morgan replied as follows:-

 

“With regards to the first FOI you refer to, the group members simply forwarded the conversation to me and the Lib-Dem group as a whole, for information only. There was no plotting on my part whatsoever.

 

Regarding the second FOI you refer to, there was a request from me to have a brief catch up with the Managing Director, to hear first hand, instead of rumours, of any concerns relating to the Councillor’s position as Chair before meeting with the Councillor themselves. At the meeting with the Councillor, which was also attended by Councillor Nightingale, I said openly that Officers do not have an issue with the Councillor being Chair. Nor separately did they have an issue with their campaigning, but that it was the combination of the two that was concerning. At this same meeting the Councillor agreed to switch from one committee to another, thereby giving themselves more freedom to campaign, but then later withdrew from the agreement. The Councillor then said at a future Lib Dem meeting they would step down from the Chairmanship in a couple of months.

 

There has been no skullduggery, conspiracy or vendetta. No one has put pressure on me or asked me to remove the Councillor as Chair. As to the code of conduct being administered with reasonableness and neutrality, there is a full audit trail and an Independent Person has been involved from the very beginning.  And should that person agree that it should be taken further, to an Assessment Sub-Committee, that is chaired by an Independent Member alongside two other members of the Governance Committee, who then come to a majority decision. The views of the Independent Person are considered and a Principle Legal Officer is in attendance for guidance and advice. Code of conduct cases are then reported to the next Governance committee meeting. Therefore, I believe this to be a reasonable and neutral process.”

 

Supplementary Question from Councillor Learoyd-

 

“I became aware of a case where a bitter political rival of a councillor chaired their code of conduct case. What are the checks and balances to prevent this from happening in future?”

 

Councillor Morgan replied as follows

 

“I do not have enough information to answer that at this time.”

 

Question 2: Question from Councillor J Hart to Councillor Quartermain, Cabinet Member for Highways and Transportation.

 

“In the last council meeting I asked questions regarding free car parking for Guisborough to which I was told I would receive a written response. 

 

In the absence of any such response by email, despite my reminders, can you please tell me:

 

1. When will the 1 hour free parking in Guisborough be introduced?

 

2. Will Guisborough receive its traditional free afternoon parking in December?”

 

Going back to the free 1-hour parking where we have had to go through all the regulations to get that going did we get a date for that?”

 

Councillor Quartermain replied as follows:-

 

“I do not think we have a specific date. I think it was going to be around the 22nd December but if it was going to be so late we would have put a temporary order in there anyway. I think what this free parking will do now from the 1st to the 31^st December you will see when January starts that 1 hour free parking will be in place.”

 

Supplementary Question from Councillor J Hart

 

“Obviously the free 1-hour parking would be all day? If someone was shopping at 9am they get one hour free? The last time I asked that question you said come the 1st December we would be assured of that anyway so could I just ask for that confirmation that it would start from the morning? I know this has been a difficult decision the way we are looking to balance the budgets and I am so grateful on behalf of all the businesses both in Guisborough and Redcar for how hard you have worked. We don’t take this for granted but we do need it, thank you so much.”

 

Councillor Quartermain replied as follows

 

“I will have a look into it. My intention was always that if we could not get it in time for the run up to Christmas then we would do something to make that happen anyway. I will come back to you with the specifics of that as I do not have a date in my head.”

 

Question 3: Question from Councillor Grogan to Councillor Brook, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods

 

“We've seen an increase of Anti-Social Behaviour within Kirkleatham, especially on Greengates Field, with the children's playground being burned down not once but twice, which causes upset amongst the community and extra cost to the taxpayer.

 

One day later, I witnessed 3 motorcycles and a gang of youths in the centre of the field with a petrol can after the last arson attempt.  Police were called but failed to turn up, unfortunately.

 

We have 1 CCTV camera on the lamp post that I've been informed is NOT monitored, and on the CCTV control system, only accessed by a select few.

 

I'm concerned that people's safety is not being prioritised by the Council.  With the hopeful investment brought in with regards to the football pitch and other entities that follow on from the hard work of Cllr Brown to bring it to Kirkleatham, the last thing our communities need is for them to potentially pull out due to safety concerns.

 

Can you please tell me what plans you are going to put in place to increase the deterrent to these vandals that plague our fields and children's playgrounds?”

 

Councillor Brook replied as follows

 

“It is correct that there has been an increase in anti social behaviour during October and early November, including the playground fire.

 

I would like to assure you that community safety is both mine and this Council’s top priority.

 

During this period the Council work alongside the Fire Brigade, Cleveland Police and Beyond Housing on Operation Autumnus – an annual operation specifically designed to reduce the opportunity of fires and anti-social behaviour on and around Mischief and bonfire night across the borough.  As well as these proactive operations, as a result of mine and the Leader’s request the Police and Crime Commissioner funded anti-social behaviour patrols were also temporarily reinstated at Kirkleatham.

 

The Council are also supporting Cleveland Police, Operation Endurance specifically in response to off road bikes. 

 

We do have one long standing rapid deployment camera at Greengates field, and whilst it is not currently continually monitored it is regularly reviewed in order to try to identify perpetrators however today I can confirm that it will be replaced following my request, with a permanent camera as part of the CCTV refurbishment and directly linked with our CCTV control room.

 

It should be noted that both the council as well as partners in the Fire Brigade and Cleveland Police are also reliant on residents reporting incidents to ensure appropriate resource allocation as well as intelligence with regard to where off road bikes are being stored and the identification of perpetrators.

 

The Neighbourhood Team are also working with colleagues in the Climate team to look at potential projects that would look to bring back Roseberry Field into greater community use and reduce the opportunity for anti-Social Behaviour.”

 

Supplementary Question from Councillor Grogan

 

“Getting a CCTV camera installed is what the residents in the area are asking for to act as a deterrent so these idiots can be seen, detained and dealt with correctly. When speaking to the police inspector, they commented that the CCTV team needs more funds to get more people on the beat.  Luke Myer MP has been lobbying the Police Minister. Can this Council support the effort to get more money from Central Government and it would be helpful if there is anything you can to do assist our Police and Crime Commissioner in this matter.”

 

Councillor Brook replied as follows

 

“This administration is in full support.”

 

Question 4: Question from Councillor Martin to Councillor Brook, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods.

 

“In May I asked you a question regarding increasing enforcement numbers so our streets could be safer.

 

Your answer was that the income in fines is only 30% of the total cost of the Enforcement Officers, and that we don't want to become known for fining, we are going more down the education route.

 

However, in the Managing Director’s August statement it says that the Council will be increasing enforcement to increase income.

 

My question to you is, which is it? Are we going down the education route, and if so, what are the Council’s plans? Six months after my question we have heard nothing.

 

Or are we going by the Managing Director’s statement and if so are we recruiting more officers?

 

Either way can we please have clarity on the council’s plans for enforcement?”

 

Councillor Brook replied as follows

 

“I can confirm that the Managing Director’s statement was that we would look to increase our income from enforcement and fines, not that we would increase Enforcement Officers

 

Any enforcement undertaken by the Council must be proportionate and reasonable, in line with good practice and legislative requirements. Public awareness and education are extremely important to ensure residents are aware of their responsibilities under the law and therefore helps to minimise the potential of them becoming subject to enforcement action. This is generally done in real time and on site.

 

We have a very experienced enforcement team who know where the hot spots are on any given day and will deploy resources appropriately.

It is about being more proactive in terms of targeting these hotspots where we know there are particular problems due to complaints, for instance, so it's a case of refocussing existing resource and trying to make it more impactful, rather than increasing officer numbers. Education still plays a key part of our role, though, so any enforcement will still be proportionate. With regards to the increase in income this is something we are looking at across the Council as part of our financial position and does not relate to your question in May.”

 

Supplementary Question from Councillor Martin-

 

“Councillor Taylor and I spent some time with our enforcement team who issued 4 tickets in 4 hours. The biggest issue the Enforcement Officers have is the 5 minute waiting time but if we had the blips on the kerbs next to the double yellow lines it is a zero waiting time. Where there are ‘blips’ on the curb Enforcement Officers do not need to wait five minutes to issue a ticket. Can we look at increasing the number of ‘blips’ on the curb to assist our Officers?”

 

Councillor Brook replied as follows

 

“Yes I agree and that is something I will follow up with the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transportation.”

 

Question 5: Question from Councillor Learoyd to Councillor Brown, Leader of the Council.

 

“After all the discussion about the cost of hosting housing appeals at previous full council meetings, I was surprised to see an expensive barrister representing the Council at the Silverdale Gardens planning appeal. An appeal this chamber agreed not to defend, with notable upholders of democracy opposing such folly. The barristers presumably handsomely rewarded contracted employment for the day appeared to consist of needlessly reading out a pre-prepared council statement. A statement to tell the Planning Inspector of how wrong I was on a technical point of unconnected case law, with no relevance to that day's subject matter. Was the Council Leader aware of this frivolous use of funds?”

 

Councillor Brown replied as follows

 

“No I was not.

 

For context, a decision had been taken not to instruct counsel to attend the hearing because, as the question points out, the appeal was not being defended.

 

However, in the lead up to the inquiry, an allegation was raised that the Council’s decision not to defend the appeal was unlawful.

 

The Leader was not consulted as it was a routine decision that related to legal proceedings.

 

The Independent Inquiry absolved the Monitoring Officer of any wrong doing whatsoever and due process was followed through the entire Silverdale Gardens process.”

 

Question 6: Question from Councillor Learoyd to Councillor Brown, Leader of the Council.

 

“In 2018, an incinerator was opened in the northwest corner of Wilton (Wilton 11). It burns 400,000 tons of rubbish from Merseyside. The history of this incinerator is interesting, Merseyside, or specifically Halton Council, didn’t want to host it. Maybe they considered something Redcar didn’t?

 

Particle (PM) 2.5µm is a microparticle in respirable range that causes cancer, cardiovascular and chronic respiratory disease.¹ The specification of the limits of Wilton 11 are PM 2.5. 30 mgM^-3, this is 10 mgM^-3 over WHO safe air quality standards.

 

The incinerator was greenwashed as an “energy recovery facility”.

 

Similarly, the proposed TVERF incinerator project at Teesworks, a proposed site which is walking distance from Wilton 11, is also proposed as PM 2.5 30 mgM^-3 according to the report produced at the planning committee 20^th July 2023.

 

The volume of PM 2.5 from the two incinerators combined with average wind speeds and directions at coordinates 54.581831, -1.140933 looking at the topography and turbulent flow patterns, will project wind direction dependent damaging levels of PM 2.5 for 6 miles. A range including Guisborough, all of Redcar and most of Middlesbrough.

 

In the notes of the TVERF paperwork, provided to me by the responsible officer, there was no study on the cumulative effects of the close-by incinerator. Indeed, I am the only PhD aerosol scientist to have reviewed the files.

 

Is the Council Leader aware of the proximity of the two incinerators and is he concerned by the effect such concentrations of PM2.5 will have on quality of life, life expectancy, mortality rates, and economic health burdens, within the six-mile radius?”

 

Councillor Brown replied as follows

 

“As Leader I am always conscious of the health of the Borough as a whole which is why issues like this rely on expert information from the Environment Agency including their assessment of stack omissions and the cumulative impacts of emissions from nearby facilities. The implication in the question that the emission levels in the area could be dangerous or harmful would need to be substantiated and submitted to the Environment Agency. I am not sure if you contributed your concerns to the Environment Agency when the open public consultations took place. The environmental permit application but the assessments concluded there would be no significant impacts on air quality or health and the permit has been granted by the Environment Agency. Councillor Earl corrected some of your claims earlier regarding these omissions but of course we are concerned in particular for the children who live in this borough and we are always looking for the best outcome for our families who will be here when we are not. I know that you brought a number of alternatives and Councillor Richardson has listened to a lot of them however, a lot of them are not working, the one that costs the gasification cost one council £90m and they are now having to pay compensation of a further £52m to try and repair it. I know you have set up an alternative meeting to look at the one that has been built in Spain but we are not sure if it would work yet as there are no working examples. We are listening and I am concerned when I hear things about omissions because I am a layman, I do not know the ins and outs however, there is a lot of refuting information from what you regularly claim in this Chamber.”

 

Supplementary Question from Councillor Learoyd

 

“So gasification is operating in over a 100 sites in the UK, it is simply not true that it is not working Milton Keynes being one of those Labour Councils. There is an actual site in Middlesbrough using gasification from residual waste which is producing carbon fuels right now. The contract is over 30 years at 30 micrograms per metre cubed as I have said already but the WHO limits are below those, indeed these are the Labour Government’s targets 10 micro grams per metre cubed, pollution exposure to be reduced by 35% compared to 2018 whilst we are increasing them. Chronic respiratory disease in the area is the fourth biggest killer of people of our age group. It is an outlier compared to the rest of the country.

 

Keir Starmer announced an 81% reduction in emissions inside 10 years yet the Council is trebling its carbon output before 2030 when it has a zero target. Indeed when we look at the finances behind this plan they do not take into consideration the 2028 carbon trading scheme which will result in an annual 68 million carbon bill.

 

I would just like to point out because Councillor Brown said that Councillor Earl had corrected me, which indeed she had not, and I did not get the chance to come back, she referenced that UK HSA had set up acceptable limits on its incinerators, they do not , it is DEFRA and the limit that was quoted was incorrect, I have just corrected it.

 

Please can we look at the finances of this and realise that it will bankrupt the Council and pull out of this ridiculous 30 year contract?”

 

Councillor Brown replied as follows

 

“We will look at the finances when we look at the business plan next year.”

 

Question 7: Question from Councillor Brown to Councillor Massey, Cabinet Member for Resources

 

Councillor Massey, with the recent announcement of additional government funding, could you share how this will assist us in addressing some of the key pressures, particularly in social care and in achieving a balanced budget? How will this support the Council's efforts to maintain essential services and deliver stability for residents across Redcar and Cleveland?

 

Councillor Massey replied as follows

 

Thank you for the question. The recent government announcement and the government budget provides some relief for the Council, but I do want to speak to all sides and to all Members in the chamber in the response to this, to the positive things that came out of the budget which I do welcome that there will be a £1.3b increase in funding for the next financial year 2025/26. We need to do the sums on this, we need the Government to do theirs to find out what our share of that will be but we would hope that it is the region of £2-£3m. Obviously that £2-£3 will greatly help this Council when it comes to balancing our budget next year but that does not prevent us in having to make difficult decisions this year. We are still predicting we may overspend by just over £7m this financial year and indeed next year which anyone who came to the Task and Finish Groups or the Member’s Conference, which unfortunately I had to work during, will know there is a £9m pressure next year. So due to this reprieve we still will have to have some risks but hopefully those risks will be mitigated but we have difficult decisions ahead. The one thing I think the Government could do and is certainly something that Councillor Brown has led on in his discussions with Ministers and is something that as a Council we will continue to lead on also is that we know the Government has announced plans to reset the Local Government Funding Formula. This is not until 2026/27 but that is where Councils like this really need to have a voice at the table as Councils like this are unable to raise the same amount of council tax from our residents as we do not have large scale properties with big council tax bill. So when Government says council tax can go up in Local Authorities what that means to Redcar and Cleveland  is (a) very difficult decision because we know the demography of our Borough and the socio economic status of our residents but (b) we can naturally raise less even if our council tax goes up. We will continue to pressure Government about that. We welcome the £1.3b and we welcome what our share will be when we find out exactly what our share will be but it does not mitigate the fact that we will have some difficult decisions moving ahead but any money the Government wants to provide us is more than welcome as we start with the £1.3b which we think will mean approximately £3m for us.”