Agenda item
Question time
In accordance with Standing Order 39, up to ten questions selected by the Leaders of the three main political groups will be followed with supplementary questions to the Executive.
A copy of the selected questions and the answers where possible will be separately circulated to all members.
Minutes:
The selected questions submitted under the provisions of standing order 38 had been circulated together with written responses from the respective Lead Members. The Members who had put the questions were invited to ask their supplementary questions.
The following three questions had been selected by the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group.
Parking income
The question from Councillor Clues had asked about the level of income generated from motorists. He stated that the answer he had received did not answer the part of his question that asked what was proposed to reduce the level of income. As a supplementary question he asked that, given that in the Labour election leaflets it had implied that £11 million was too much income from parking in the borough and that it was claimed that Labour were "working with the motorists to get a fairer deal", what proposals would be brought forward to reduce the amount of income from motorists in Brent.
Councillor J Moher (Lead Member for Highways and Transportation) expressed surprise that the question of election leaflets had been raised and considered the example given as mild. He added that there was no commitment to reduce the level of income and reminded Council that the use of the surplus was governed by law. Councillor Moher stated that what he would not be doing would be to furtively raid the account but would instead spend the money in consultation with motorists.
Highways maintenance
The question from Councillor Beck had asked for confirmation of when the programme for spending the additional £1.5 million on repairs to potholes and roads would be published. He again referred to the Labour pre election pledge to use money saved on consultants to repair roads. As a supplementary question Councillor Beck asked how many consultants had been got rid of and how much money this had generated for investment in Brent's roads.
Councillor J Moher (Lead Member for Highways and Transport) referred to the written answer provided to Councillor Beck. He accused the previous Liberal Democrat led administration of front loading repairs to roads and pavements during the first two years and then reducing spend during the latter two years of the administration. Even on a reduced spend he accused the previous administration of failing to complete the programme and stated that the issue of maintaining Brent's roads and pavements would be tackled in a proper way.
CCTV enforcement policy
The question from Councillor Green had asked if the new CCTV enforcement policy was going to be a money making scheme. In the absence of Councillor Green, Councillor Ashraf asked a supplementary question on his behalf. He asked given that Labour now ran Brent and any decisions taken were of their choosing, and further given that the current income from parking was around £14 million - £3 million more than the £11 million thought to be too much - would warning tickets for drivers who breach the new CCTV enforcement policy be issued so that the traffic can still be policed but without making more money.
Councillor J Moher (Lead Member for Highways and Transport) referred to the report included with the summons for the Council meeting concerning the enforcement of moving traffic and parking contraventions by means of CCTV cameras which gave a clear indication of how the new arrangements would work. Councillor Moher stressed the importance of the proposal, which included taking over responsibility from the police. He hoped all councillors would familiarise themselves with what was proposed. He referred to the previous administration considering the proposals back in March 2009 but not progressing them. He also referred to discussion at a previous meeting of the Forward Plan Select Committee about training staff to exercise judgement when enforcing the policy.
The following two questions had been selected by the Leader of the Conservative Group.
Funding for South Kilburn Estate
The question from Councillor Colwill had asked if there had been any change to the funding that was announced in April for the South Kilburn Estate. He referred to a story that had appeared in the local newspaper suggesting that the money had been removed. Councillor Colwill stated that there was £16 million surplus left in the Kilburn regeneration money pot and as a supplementary question, he asked for confirmation that the money would stay in South Kilburn.
Councillor Crane (Lead Member for Regeneration and Economic Development) replied that the Council was working in partnership on the regeneration of South Kilburn. He did not know the exact amount of money ringfenced for this area and would ask officers to provide this. Nevertheless he was confident that the area would remain a priority for regeneration. However, he warned that the longer term implications of Government cuts were not known but it was clear they would affect all regeneration schemes and in turn affect working people.
Planning enforcement
The question from Councillor HB Patel had asked if it was intended to alter planning procedures so that serial contraveners were penalised. He stated that unauthorised developments were of great concern to all and only 25% of notices had been complied with. As a supplementary question, Councillor Patel asked what percentage of the 75% had complied following taking action against those that contravene planning applications and was the Lead Member prepared to take positive action to stop this process.
Councillor Powney (Lead Member for Environment, Planning and Culture) replied that he thought his written answer covered the supplementary question being asked. He emphasised that the Council was an aggressive enforcer of planning regulations. However it was better to get people to comply with planning permissions because it was cheaper than pursuing enforcement.
The following five questions had been selected by the Leader of the Labour Group.
Civic centre development
The question from Councillor Hector had asked what plans there were for the current Town Hall and if these had been affected by the economic climate. Councillor Hector indicated that she was satisfied with the answer she had received from the Leader of the Council and did not wish to ask a supplementary question.
Building Schools for the Future (BSF) funding
The question from Councillor Gladbaum had asked what efforts had been made to lobby local MPs on BSF funding. Councillor Gladbaum felt the Lead Member would be as appalled as she was by the Government's decision which would adversely impact on young people in the borough for decades to come. As a supplementary question she asked if there were any other sources of funding to replace the £80 million lost to the borough.
Councillor Arnold (Lead Member for Children and Families) agreed that the cutting of the programme and the way it had been done was shocking. She stated that it appeared the Government did not understand the need and so it was difficult to see where other funding would come from. The Council was left with seven schools in desperate need of rebuild/repair and a shortage of places because many of the schemes had included plans for expansion.
'Free schools'
The question from Councillor Harrison had asked if the Lead Member agreed that the Conservatives 'free schools' plan was a shambles. As a supplementary question, Councillor Harrison asked if the Lead Member was aware of where the funding would come from for free schools and would it be at the expense of existing schools.
Councillor Arnold (Lead Member for Children and Families) stated that the proposal did not appear to have been properly thought through and made reference to the Swedish experience. More information from the Government was awaited but it had already been mentioned that resources might be drawn from existing funding for schools.
Budget cuts
The question from Councillor S Choudhary had asked if recent press reports that decisions had already been made to cut services were accurate. He stated that the suggested cuts were as a result of the cuts made by the Government but as a supplementary question asked if assurances could be given that the Council would seek to protect front line services from the savage cuts imposed by the Government.
Councillor John (Leader) stressed that the reports in the local press were very inaccurate but it was true that the Council faced very difficult times with £60 million to £90 million of budget cuts to be made over the next few years. Careful consideration would be given to where any cuts were made and decisions would be taken to ensure services continued to be delivered in a joined up way.
Kingsbury Road traffic scheme
The question from Councillor Naheerathan had asked if the Kingsbury Road traffic scheme would be reviewed. He stated that he was very satisfied with the reply he had received from the Lead Member because it indicated that the scheme would be reviewed next spring.
Councillor J Moher (Lead Member for Highways and Transport) added that the main objection from local residents was that they felt they had not been consulted and so a review of the scheme would be included in the 2010/11 programme.
Supporting documents: