Agenda item

The Leader and Councillor Downs returned to the room

The Leader, Councillor Gullis presented the statement that had been circulated about the activities and decisions made by Cabinet to allow questions and comments.  He stated that in a short period of time, the new Administration had saved the taxpayer £6.2m by cancelling net-zero plans for the electric bin lorries.  He was proud of the introduction of the Community Funding and the Article Four Direction.

Questions were raised and responses were provided as follows.

On paragraph 2 – Waste Vehicles – Procurement Saving

Councillor Hutchison stated that the road map to net-zero had £7m for fleet replacement.  Electric RCV’s were put into the budget 4 years ago -in line with Government guidelines.  As the previous Portfolio Holder, Councillor Hutchison had agreed that the Council would not be buying electric waste collection vehicles.  The Council had been successfully using hydro treated vegetable oil in its vehicles, reducing carbon emissions so there was no need to purchase  electric vehicles.  Councillor Hutchison had considered it prudent to leave the budget unchanged and were acting with good judgement thinking about any possible penalties from the Government for not purchasing electric vehicles  and any price increases in the purchase of future waste vehicles.

The Leader stated that it was a serious implication to infer that the Council’s Section 151Officer had not made sure that the £2.1m saving from changing the Council’s procurement rules was a genuine saving.

There was a plan in the Capital Programme for a future procurement for electric collection vehicles.  There was a quote of £4.2m for the infrastructure that was not budgeted for.  £6.2m had been saved for the people of Newcastle from future spending in the Capital Programme and ending net-zero.  

Councillor Simon Tagg referred to Hansard where it stated that, previously as an MP, Councillor Gullis had welcomed a new electric bus fleet in Stoke on Trent through an investment and asked the Leader what had changed.

The Leader stated that he did argue for the electric buses in Stoke on Trent because a private company was willing to invest almost £40m into improving the bus network which had not been improved in over a decade.

Councillor Mark Harrison stated that he was not opposed to electric vehicles.  In his professional background he had been involved in electric vehicle technology – specifically air taxis.  For solar power, 3mw would be needed to charge a fleet of vehicles which equated to approximately 7000 solar panels.

Vehicle performance would dip in the winter so the national grid would have to be relied upon.

Paragraph 3 - Article 4 Direction

Councillor Casy-Hulme welcomed this particularly the recognition of uncontrolled growth of Houses of Multiple Occupation(HMO’s) and their affect on local communities.  The Article 4 Direction would ensure that they were subject to the Planning process allowing their impact to be properly assessed before any approval was given.  

The Leader congratulated Councillor Casey-Hulme for her hard work in her Ward in respect of HMO’s.

Councillor Fear stated that it was clear that people rightly had concerns regarding HMO’s.  Councillor Fear asked for assurance from the Leader, in respect of paragraph 3.4 of the agenda report, that when a report goes to Cabinet, it would be investigated thoroughly.

Councillor Simon Tagg welcomed this and referred to the Motion that had come to Council last September which had asked officers to look at HMO’s and possible Article 4 Directions.  It was Councillor Tagg’s understanding that a report had been prepared and the Leader was asked why the report could not be brought to Council sooner than the Autumn.

The Leader stated that when the Article 4 Direction report came back to Cabinet and to Full Council, the detail would be done.  There was already a heat map of where  registered HMO’s were going and detailed work was being carried out regarding where the other HMO’s were.

Councillor Kasperowicz asked the Leader  if he agreed that vulnerable people should be fully supported with the proper safeguarding procedures in place – including safe accommodation and the full support at the Council’s disposal.

The Leader stated that his group were lucky to have Councillor Renshaw with them who had extensive experience, both working as a Housing Officer at the Council previously and leading  a successful charity supporting homelessness and addictions within Stoke on Trent.  Councillor Renshaw was currently looking at the Homelessness Strategy to ensure that a support package was in place and that the resources of the Council were working with those who wished to engage.  

Paragraph 4 – Walleys Quarry

Councillor Casey Hulme asked why the costs order, awarded against Walleys Quarry was not enforced and asked for an update on the multi-agency working group regarding the capping and restoration of the site.

The Leader stated that he did not have the information to hand and would therefore email Councillor Casey-Hulme after the meeting.

Councillor Jones welcomed the announcement of a cross-party working group and asked the Leader for more information on the powers and remit of the group and whether meetings and recommendations would be reported publicly.

The Leader stated that once the group was formed and the first meeting was held, the powers and remit could be discussed there.  It was hoped that the first meeting would be held soon – over the summer.    

Paragraph 5 – Community Fund

Councillor Jones welcomed this and asked the Leader to advise him of any discussions around governance of the Fund to ensure transparency and management of conflicts of interest and political impartiality.

The Leader stated that the Section 151 Officer had written in the Cabinet report the terms on which the money could be used and not used.  Information would be published on every Councillors page where money had been spent and when.  Councillors would email either the Section 151 Officer or the Deputy Chief Executive with suggestions and ask for feedback.  

Councillor Simon Tagg also welcomed the scheme which had grown out of the Council’s Civic Pride Fund. He shared the concerns around the management and audit of the scheme.

Councillor Mark Harrison asked Councillor Simon Tagg if his group could draw on Councillor Tagg’s experience of managing such funds in the past.

The Leader, referring to Councillor Harrison’s comment stated that Councillor Tagg’s experience would be most welcome.

Councillor Kasperowicz asked the Leader how the funds would support grass roots organisations, local events and voluntary organisations.

The Leader stated that it could be used, for example, at Kidsgrove Scouts who needed a new boiler or to contribute towards a new kitchen there.  It could be used for community litter picks, skip days, jet washing local bus stops and much more.

Councillor Downs was pleased that local schools looking for help with funding would be another good cause.  

Paragraph 6 – Local Government Reorganisation (LGR)  

Councillor Whieldon, referring to digital platforms in regard to LGR stated that the digital platforms had shown that the Leader had shifted his position on LGR since being elected – now being opposed to it,  whereas the former Leader had been consistent with his opposition to the process.

The Leader stated that Councillor Whieldon was correct.  His Facebook history stated  that rather than sitting back, the elected representatives must actively shape a system that truly served the community.  The Leader believed that, rather than being reactive- it was sometimes good to be proactive.  He accepted that the people of Newcastle, Reform UK Councillors and the wider community had made it clear that LGR should not go ahead and it was sometimes good to admit that you were on the wrong side of an argument and, ad Leader would fight for Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council’s right to exist.

Resolved:    That the Statement of the Leader of the Council be received and noted.

Watch the debate here