Agenda item

The Mayor advised that this again was the first time that this item had appeared on the agenda under the new Constitution and briefly explained how Question Time would operate.  He stated that Question Time would allow members of the public to ask questions of Councillors in responsible positions such as Portfolio Holders and Chairs of Non-Regulatory Committees.  Again questions would need to be previously submitted both from members of the public and Councillors five clear working days before the Council meeting.  In accordance with the Constitution copies of the questions would be circulated prior to the commencement of the meeting.  There would be a 30 minute time slot for this item and any questions that had not been answered within the time slot would be responded to in writing.  It was noted that the Mayor could use his discretion to vary the order of questions should he so wish but normally they would be considered in the order in which they were received with members questions being considered first followed by the questions from members of the public.

(A)   Councillor B Markham then asked a question of Councillor Flavell.  He stated that the Street Care Team and Neighbourhood Wardens had helped achieve a reduction in the time it took to remove fly tipping.  However there were still areas of the town where such anti-social behaviour was endemic and teams were out two to three times a week to deal with dumped rubbish and items of furniture.  A small minority of couldn’t care less individuals were adding to the cost of the service which was paid for by hard working Council Tax payers.  He asked if the Portfolio Holder could tell him how many prosecutions had taken place or were pending as a result of Council monitoring on site where fly tipping was a common occurrence.  Councillor Flavell stated in the first instance that roadshows and the schools programme to deliver education first was being carried out whilst fixed penalty notices were issued to those caught in the act of littering.  However due to the high cost of prosecution there had been difficulties in getting people to court to get the fines paid.  There were also other factors in the issuing of the fixed penalty notices such as the threat of physical/verbal abuse to staff working alone and therefore a set of protocols had been put together to see that the tickets got issued but staff did not feel under threat.  One of the issues that was highlighted was that the wardens needed to foster relationships with the local residents.  Northampton Borough Council’s Legal Department was now in contact with some London Boroughs who had an excellent record in prosecuting persistent offenders and litterers.  With the introduction of the Clean Neighbourhood Act 2005 all the paperwork surrounding enforcement has had to be changed.  This was now completed and it was intended to run an anti-littering campaign whereby a number of staff would be put into a bad area and issue tickets to all of those who were flaunting the law.

(B)   Councillor Markham then asked a question of Councillor Larratt as the Portfolio Holder stating that in the summer and autumn of 2006 a service review of area partnerships and community forums was carried out by a Task and Finish Group of officers and Councillors.  The report was published in October and included recommendations to improve the workings of both and to integrate the work of area partnerships with the new neighbourhood managed areas set up under the local agreement.  He asked what was the current status of the report and when would the recommendations be discussed by the Portfolio Holder or the Cabinet.  Councillor Larratt advised that the management of the Area Partnerships and Community Forums was transferred from Community Engagement to Regeneration and Growth in October 2006.  The service review report was concluded in October 2006 and would be discussed by senior managers following which a recommendation would be made to the Portfolio Holder.  In response to a supplementary Councillor Larratt advised that the transfer had led to some delay and also there had been other priorities such as the CPA report, the budget etc but that he would be pursuing this accordingly.

(C)   Councillor Allen asked Councillor Flavell as the Portfolio Holder whether she could provide an update on the progress to deal with pollution levels above national limits at identified traffic hotspots such as those in St James and Victoria Promenade.  She also asked what progress had been made toward reducing carbon emissions around these hotspots in partnership with Northamptonshire County Council.  Councillor Flavell advised that the St James and Victoria Promenade areas were declared as air quality management areas in April 2005 due to levels of nitrogen dioxide exceeding the national objective standard.  Since then the Council had been monitoring these sites using real time analysers supported by a network of diffusion tubes.  Public consultation by way of leaflet drops to all properties in those areas had been undertaken together with wider publicity through the local press and radio.  The problem was due to traffic and therefore the Council had worked with the County Council to identify steps to reduce pollution from traffic.  The County had introduced a traffic management system and improvement to the public transport system which in the short term appeared to have led to a reduction in the nitrogen dioxide levels.  The other key influence on the St James area was the recent opening of the Edgar Mobbs relief road.  However it was too soon to comment on the effect this road had on air quality.  In addition the Council was due to complete an air quality action plan by February 2007 which would look at other possible measures to improve air quality.  Once completed there would be further public consultation.  Carbon emissions had not been addressed within the remit of local air quality management.  However issues relating to energy and climate change would be addressed under the forthcoming sustainable development strategy.  The recently signed Nottingham Declaration underlined the Council’s commitment to reducing its environmental impact and was a key element of this strategy.

(D)   Councillor Roy asked Councillor Hadland as Leader of the Council whether he could give details of the risk analysis that was performed in taking the decision to allow only a two week consultation period for the budget.  Councillor Hadland stated that public consultation on policy issues was regarded as extremely important and for that reason there was wide consultation over a relatively short period.  He stated that also great care would be taken to capture the issues before Council policy in its final budget shape at Council on 13 February 2007 was formulated.  A decision on this approach and timetable was not taken lightly and he was aware of the level of public concern that would be aroused.  After extensive discussion with other political groups and officers during the latter part of 2006 about the challenges facing the Council it was agreed that this approach was appropriate.  The consultation process had been intensive and had gone much further than simply meeting our statutory obligations.  He stated that they had positively sought to engage as wide a cross section of the public and various interest groups as possible albeit within a limited time frame.  In the final analysis the Council had to prepare a balanced budget within the statutory deadline.  Risk analysis and management was an important aspect of all the Council’s work.  He was conscious of the compressed timetable for consultation and the challenge set but took the view that it was workable.  Councillor Roy thanked the Leader for his response and asked a supplementary question in what investment had been done in terms of quality impact assessment in terms of the disadvantage of having a consultation of only two weeks.  Councillor Hadland stated that this required a detailed response and that he would write to her shortly.

(E)    The Mayor advised that a question had been received from a member of the public who was not present and as such a written response would be sent to that person accordingly.