To receive any written questions.

Councillors may ask questions of Cabinet Members and Chairmen of Committees so long as a copy of the question is deposited with the Head of Legal and Democratic Services at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.  A list of questions, set out in the order in which they had been received, was circulated at the beginning of the meeting.  Councillors may also, at the discretion of the Chairman, ask one additional question on the same topic.  The questions and a summary of the answers are set out below.

 

Questions from Councillor A.C.R. Chappell

 

"Can the Cabinet Member explain the tendering process recently undertaken by the Council for the stabilising of headstones in Council owned cemeteries?  How many stonemasons tendered for the work and was the successful tender the least expensive?

 

£140 per headstone has been given as the successful tender.  Is the Cabinet Member aware that at least two private quotes have been obtained from one stonemason in Hereford quoting £84 for the safe stabilising of one headstone.

 

Does he agree that with over 6000 headstones to be stabilised in Council owned cemeteries, some of whose owners will not be traced, that the council tax payer appears to be overcharged by some £56 for this service?

 

In the light of this will the Cabinet Member review the tendering process and ensure that the council tax payer gets value for money."

 

Councillor P.J. Edwards, Cabinet Member (Environment) confirmed that, when memorial testing began it had been decided that there would be benefits in securing the services of a monumental mason to undertake repair work at a fixed standard price. 

 

This meant that monumental masons did not have to quote each time they undertook a repair; families, including those who do not live in Herefordshire, were able to secure the services of a mason easily, at a guaranteed price; and the Council would effectively organise the repair.  The Council did not receive any payment from this service.

 

All monumental masons on the Council's registered list were asked to provide a quote on refixing a standard memorial. Four  replied and the quotes varied between £120 and £350 - the companies were asked to tender for a standard price to repair a standard lawn memorial. The price of the chosen contractor was not the lowest, it was £20 more expensive than the cheapest quote submitted, but the mason chosen was the one that provided the best specification and thereby reduced the risks of there being any further long-term issues with the safety of re-fixed memorials.

 

The Memorial Safety Programme started in a part of the cemetery where the headstones were of almost identical construction.  This is because, on the initial risk assessment, the headstones in this area consistently showed higher levels of failure than other parts of the cemetery.  Because of the circumstances in this part of the cemetery it has been relatively straightforward to commission a mason to provide a fixed standard price 

 

The Council has facilitated a number of repairs through this process and have received compliments for the way the service and the monumental mason handled the matter.

 

Because we are moving to an area of the cemetery where the memorials are not standard we will not be able to continue with the fixed price arrangement.  It is apparent that it may be possible to repair some of these memorials at a lower cost than the £140 fixed charge while others may be considerably more.  Bereavement Services are aware of the issue Councillor Chappell has raised, and are aware that the memorial referred to is not a "standard lawn memorial" and it would be anticipated that the cost of repair in this particular case would be lower than the standard price.  As a result of this Bereavement Services have reviewed the position and have now withdrawn the offer to organise the work for a standard price.

 

Councillor Edwards said that Councillor Chappell's estimate of 6,000 was an extremely high estimate for the number of memorials that will require refixing.  The Council's own estimate is that the number requiring refixing will be no more than 4,000.  This is because the areas of the cemetery with the highest numbers of failures have been tackled first and it is anticipated a reducing proportion of memorials will require attention, as the programme continues.

 

Councillor Chappell said that the matter had not been deal with sensitively, and asked for an urgent review to be carried out.  He was concerned about the costs, especially for those families who had a number of headstone that needed to be stabilised.  Councillor Edwards said that it would be for the new administration to consider whether it should carry out a further review.

 

Question from Councillor AL Williams

 

"I would like to know what length of time and process was used by the Health and Safety executive when testing the gravestones at Hereford Cemetery and what  does the yellow and green scaffolding ends signify?"

 

Councillor P.J. Edwards, Cabinet Member (Environment) replied that in 2004, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) had written to all local authority Chief Executives drawing attention to the need to act in relation to unstable memorials.  The HSE have used enforcement powers against local authorities when necessary to require testing programmes, and to require an increase in testing rates and has in some cases the closure of cemeteries.  Testing in some councils has been by hand but in Herefordshire the test applied is by using a pressure tester, used only by trained operatives.  This is a British Standard and is adopted by the National Association of Memorial Masons, the Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management and the Association of Burial Authorities.

 

Councillor Edwards advised that there was no significance to the different coloured plastic caps used on the temporary supports – they were simply from different batches.

 

Question from Councillor AL Williams

 

"Can you please tell me when and why disabled parking ceased after 10.30 in Broad Street opposite Barclays Bank and outside Greggs?"

 

Councillor D.B. Wilcox, Cabinet Member (Highways and Transportation) said that, following the permanent pedestrianisation of Widemarsh Street in 2006, the section of Broad Street north of West Street / East Street junction is not legally accessible by vehicles between 10.30am and 4.30pm during the daytime closure of Widemarsh Street.  However, a number of vehicles were making an illegal and potentially unsafe manoeuvre by either making a left turn from West Street or reversing up Broad Street to access the area during the closure period. 

 

Traffic Management arrangements in the Broad Street area have been reviewed and changes to the Traffic Regulation Orders in the area were introduced on 30th March, 2007.  This included preventing the use of the disabled parking bay between the hours of 10.30am and 4.30pm in Broad Street opposite Barclays Bank and outside Greggs to tie in with the times of the daytime pedestrianisation of Widemarsh Street.  In addition, the disabled parking bay on the east side of Broad Street immediately south of the junction with East Street has been extended to provide some additional disabled parking provision.

 

The changes to the Traffic Regulation Orders were introduced on an experimental basis that allows for representations to be made over the following six months and considered prior to making the changes permanent.  The changes have only recently been introduced and are still in a settling in period.  As such, a pragmatic approach is being taken to enforcement.  New signs make clear the restrictions that now apply and public notices are in place indicating the details of the experimental order. The Council has already been made aware of concerns regarding this aspect of the changes.  The effect of all the changes to the orders in the area is being monitored and all representations will be considered when deciding whether to make the changes permanent in their current form or whether to introduce modifications.

 

Questions from Councillor Mrs A. Toon

"How many Penalty Notices have been issued in the last 6 months to parents of pupils at secondary school for not attending school?

What support was given to these parents/children by education welfare?

Where are these children now?

Which secondary schools have the highest number of penalty notices issued?

Why is it that in one case, when the education welfare section gave no support or assistance for over 5 months, then issued a penalty notice and then within a matter of weeks allowed the young person to now go on extended study leave without any home study support  or organised work placement?

Would the Education Dept consider refunding Penalty Notices where there is clear evidence that the parent made every effort for the child to attend and it is shown that the Education Dept and the School failed the child?"

 

Councillor D.W. Rule, Cabinet Member (Children and Young People).advised that  44 Penalty Notices had been issued since September 2006.

He stated that there is always support offered to pupils and parents before (and indeed after) a Penalty Notice is issued.  If a parent does not pay a Penalty Notice the Council has to take the case to Court and Magistrates are very keen to see in what ways the Education Welfare Service has engaged or tried to engage with the family.

 

He stated that all of the children should be in school.  A number of them will be in year 11 but should still be attending until exams or study leave arrives.

 

He gave the following breakdown of the Penalty Notices issued:

 

Aylestone High School - 17

Bishop of Hereford's Bluecoat School - 1

John Kyrle High School 6

John Masefield High School – 4

Lady Hawkins High School, Kington – 3

The Minster College – 3

Queen Elizabeth High School – 2

Weobley High School – 1

Wyebridge Sports College – 3

Pupil Referral Units - 4.

 

He said it would not be appropriate to talk about individual pupils, however, the principle is that the Education Welfare Service worked with the families and schools with regard to  extended study leave and the academic support they receive.  He reminded Council that these decisions are not made by the Education Welfare Service but by headteachers, and there is little we can do to change a decision made by a headteacher.

 

He reminded Council that the service works in partnership with families and schools, and aims to resolve issues of non-attendance at an earlier stage.  It is only when all previous attempts have broken down that prosecution is resorted to as the final option.  It would, therefore, not be appropriate to consider refunding the fine.

 

In response to a query about a particular case, the Cabinet Member asked Councillor Mrs. Toon to give him the details outside the meeting and he would investigate the matter.

 

Questions from Councillor W.L.S. Bowen

"Considering that this Council is able to set its own requirements for insulation and energy efficiency in all new buildings - why is it that much higher levels of insulation and energy efficiency in all new build are not being demanded?

Are you aware that other Council's already do this?

Are you aware that we are 25 years and more behind most other European Union countries, such as Sweden, Belgium and Eire?"

 

Councillor P.J. Edwards, Cabinet Member (Environment) said that submissions for Building Regulations must achieve the levels of  insulation and energy efficiency as set out in the regulations and detailed in the relevant approved document. As with all building regulations the (minimum) standard set may be exceeded if the applicant wishes, but the Council has no authority to insist on higher standards.

 

He said that the Building Regulations requirements for levels of insulation and energy efficiency had become far more stringent in recent years and in particular with the introduction of higher standards in April 2006, which also recognised the importance of measuring carbon dioxide emissions.  The Government is committed to a further review of this area of the Building Regulations by 2010.

 

In response to a request from Councillor Bowen that the Council sets its own standards, Councillor Edwards advised that the Council worked with the UK standards and cited two examples of recent developments where the standards had been exceeded and carbon emissions reduced, namely, Whitecross High School and the block of 24 apartments at Barton Yard, Hereford.

 

Questions from Councillor W.L.S. Bowen

"Why is that so little is being done by this Council to encourage local biomass power generation?

Is this Council aware that most of Herefordshire biomass production is to be exported to Eire as they have made a rapid and determined commitment to this sustainable source of energy?

Is this Council aware that up to 5,000 acres of biomass will be grown and exported, and that all of this could, potentially, be used in Herefordshire?"

 

Councillor P.J. Edwards advised that a plant at Lyonshall now has its Waste Management Licence and is up and running, powering poultry units with waste cooking oil .

Pontrilas Renewable Energy have planning permission for 2 x 5MW burners (permission granted Jan 07) - but are affected by changes in grants available.

 

He said that the local planning authority cannot promote or encourage any particular development, it can only make recommendations based on adopted policy on applications presented to it, and is therefore entirely dependent on developers coming forward with suitable and acceptable proposals.

 

However, biomass energy generation is supported in principle (subject to acceptable environmental protection and mitigation, along with Environment Agency approval), and permissions have been granted for energy generation from waste wood/sawdust/forestry waste, and also from waste cooking oil.

 

Question from Councillor Mrs. M.D. Lloyd-Hayes

 

"In order to improve the role of the Councillor, is it proposed in the next term to promote and continue with training of the Members' Development Working Group?"

 

Councillor Mrs. J.P. French, Cabinet Member (Corporate and Customer Services and Human Resources) thanked Councillor Mrs. Lloyd-Hayes for her involvement with the Members' Development Working Group and said that some preparatory work was being undertaken to support the continuance of the Working Group, but that that decision could only be taken by the new administration.

 

Councillor Mrs. Lloyd-Hayes asked why reports of the meetings were not submitted to Cabinet or Council.

 

Question from Councillor Mrs. M.D. Lloyd-Hayes

 

"As suitable premises have recently become available on the boundary of Tupsley and Aylestone Wards, will this Council seriously consider investing in young people and the community by purchasing or leasing this local property thus providing a much needed community facility serving several thousand people?"

 

Councillor R.V. Stockton, Cabinet Member (Community Services) re-iterated the reply he had given earlier in the meeting and went on to say that the Council takes a corporate approach to asset and capital planning and resources are therefore allocated in line with corporate priorities.

 

Councillor Mrs. Lloyd-Hayes said the Council should support these community-led projects and transfer £380,000 from the sale of the youth centre back into youth services.