Agenda item
Public Questions
To deal with questions from the public within the open forum question and answer session of fifteen minutes in total. Questions from each member of the public should be no longer than one minute each and relate to issues under the Council’s remit. At any one meeting no person may submit more than two questions and no more than two such questions may be asked on behalf of one organisation.
The Chair will ask whether any members of the public present at the meeting wish to ask a question and will decide on the order of questioners.
The response may take the form of:
a) a direct oral answer;
b) where the desired information is in a publication of the Council or other published work, a reference to that publication; or
c) where the reply cannot conveniently be given orally, a written answer circulated later to the questioner.
Minutes:
The Vice-Chair then invited the first public speaker to ask their question.
Councillor Mike Cameron Davies of Sapperton Parish Council asked a question regarding waste collection issues. Whilst recognising that the recent round reorganisation was required for the Council’s budget, it was felt that the Council did not take appropriate action to mitigate the impact on those affected. Frampton Mansell was used as an example of an area where bin collections had not been consistent to the new timetable. The question asked was if the Council agreed that this was a pretty poorly planned and executed change that should not be repeated, and what lessons have been learned from this?
The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance, Councillor Mike Evemy, responded as the portfolio holder for waste and recycling and apologised to residents who had been inconvenienced from the changes. It was highlighted that officers within Publica and Ubico had been working hard on implementing the changes. It was affirmed that the planning work for the changes had been underway since November 2023, with the issues arising from the logistics implementing the change. There was a desire to minimise further disruptions on waste collections and it was noted that extra resources had been put in to the project. It was highlighted that missed bin collections had fallen week on week after an initial increase in missed bin collections.
A supplementary question was asked by Councillor Mike Cameron Davies about clarifying how the Council would proceed from here and work in a smarter way and how lessons would be learnt.
The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance, Councillor Evemy, stated that officers were to rectify any current issues and noted the complexities of the locations of properties in the District. Whilst stating that the change wasn’t recognised as being a failure, there would be lessons to be learnt for any future changes required and that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would have a role in scrutinising any such changes.
Ben Eddols asked a public question regarding the proposed Stow and the Swells Neighbourhood Development Plan. It was highlighted that many volunteers’ hours had been put into developing the plan since 2011 to improve the local community such as affordable housing, improving parking spaces and finding a permanent space for Stow Town Council. The main part of the plan had been rejected by the Inspector. In addition, Stow Town Council were currently in negotiations with Cotswold District Council regarding the future of the public toilets. It was felt that it was wrong that the residents should cover the £15,000 annual loss through the precept. It was asked why Stow Town Council should exist given the perceived lack of control over events in the communities.
The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance, Councillor Evemy, wished to pick up the point about the toilets. It was noted that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had conducted a review through the Public Conveniences Working Group. The review had highlighted the need for the service to change and duplicate locations in one locality needed to be addressed. It was explained that discussions were taking place but there were constraints about what the Council could do on the future ownership of assets.
The Cabinet Member for Planning and Regulatory Services, Councillor Juliet Layton, answered the point raised on the neighbourhood development plan and recognised the disappointment around the proposed developments being taken out by the examiner. It was noted that the Council and gone through a rigorous process and would go to a referendum in September. Councillor Layton commended the Town Council for their work on the rest of the plan, and said that conversations had been held with officers and the member for Stow around these issues.
The Cabinet Member for Communities and Public Safety, Councillor Lisa Spivey, wished to pick up the point about communities not being heard and that frustration was understood. It was key that decentralisation of decisions takes place. It was noted that the Town and Parish Council forums did take place in order to engage Town and Parish Councils as the centre of their communities.
Neil Backwith then asked a question about the impacts of the Council’s Local Plan on Moreton-in-Marsh. It was noted that a locally organised poll of residents in Moreton-in-Marsh showed a 96% rejection of the proposed Local Plan Update. The question asked to Councillor Joe Harris was if the Council would withdraw the Local Plan and replace it or would it continue with the overdevelopment in Moreton-in-Marsh?
The Leader, Councillor Joe Harris, noted that the Council would not be withdrawing the Local Plan Update. It was noted that there was a consultation on some of the key elements of the proposals. It was stated that Moreton would get more housing in the future but that some of this housing would unlock better infrastructure in the town. It was highlighted that whilst it would be preferable to go with an infrastructure first approach, the current system for planning did not allow for this. It was confirmed that the Council would continue to work with local communities going forward on the Local Plan Update.
The Chair then indicated that the 15 minutes allocated for public speakers had been used, and that therefore the other public speakers present who wished to ask a question were encouraged to submit their questions to Cabinet Members directly and would get an answer from the Cabinet Members in writing.
Councillor David Fowles on a point of order asked whether the Vice-Chair knew under the system how many questions there would be and that it was disappointing for those members of the public who had travelled to the Chamber to ask a question. The Vice-Chair indicated he wasn’t aware of how many questions were going to be asked, but advised Councillor Fowles that any procedural points could be discussed at the Constitution Working Group. It was highlighted that the packed agenda required the timings to be kept to.