Agenda item

To ask questions of Portfolio Holders. Questions received will be tabled at the meeting. (Members are reminded that questions must be submitted to the Chief Executive or to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services by not later than noon on Friday 4 December 2015.)

The following Portfolio Holder question submitted by Cllr Harrison at the last Council meeting, which was deferred due to his absence, will be considered under this item:

Question to the Housing & Communities Portfolio Holder:

“Will the portfolio holder make a statement with regard to the situation at Savoy House in Totton?”

Question 1 – Cllr Harrison asked the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Communities for an update with regard to the situation at Savoy House, Totton. The Portfolio Holder replied that following detailed intrusive inspections of the fabric of the building, where a number of serious structural and health and safety concerns were revealed, officers had to find alternative accommodation for tenants. Council officers had managed this difficult process well, with the support of the tenants involved and there were now only three households in B&B waiting for an offer for accommodation. The owner of the property had now surrendered the lease, at no cost to the Council.  In response to a supplementary question regarding lessons that could have been learnt in the inspection regime, the Portfolio Holder replied that the defects were only revealed when parts of the internal fabric of the building was dismantled when looking for the causes of damp issues and it would not be reasonable for inspections of this nature to be routinely carried out.

Question 2 - Cllr Harrison asked the Portfolio Holder for Health & Leisure whether he expected the Sedentary Lifestyle Task & Finish Group to examine the decision to increase Health & Leisure Centre membership for age 60 – 65’s. In reply, the Portfolio Holder said thatthis matter has been given full consideration by the Community Overview & Scrutiny Panel. The Panel agreed that as people were living healthier lives for longer and the state pension for ‘seniors’ was 65, the policy should reflect that.

In implementing the decision, the Council had taken a fair approach by allowing all existing fitness direct members who are 60 – 65 to have their current (lower) price honoured for as long as they remained members.

The change in policy would provide the Council with income of £52,000 which would be reinvested back into the Health and Leisure Centres.  The Council, whilst achieving a 97% customer satisfaction rate, compared more favourably with other centre membership fees. The Portfolio Holder therefore did not believe that the decision would have a significant impact on customers, particularly as the Council’s Health and Leisure Service offered extensive programmes to encourage residents to participate in active, healthy lifestyles. As such, the Portfolio Holder would not waste the time of the Task & Finish Group by asking them to review the matter again.

Question 3 - Cllr Harrison asked the Portfolio Holder for Planning & Transportation how car parking charges calculated. The Portfolio Holder replied that as the matter had been subject to robust discussion at the Environment Overview & Scrutiny Panel, he had nothing more to add.

Question 1:

From:  Cllr Harrison

To:  Cllr Mrs Cleary, Housing & Communities Portfolio Holder

“Will the Portfolio Holder make a statement with regard to the situation at Savoy House in Totton?”

Answer:

The Portfolio Holder replied that following detailed intrusive inspections of the fabric of the building, where a number of serious structural and health and safety concerns were revealed, officers had had to find alternative accommodation for tenants. Council officers had managed this difficult process well, with the support of the tenants involved.  There were now only three households in B&B waiting for an offer of accommodation. The owner of the property had agreed the surrender of the lease, at no cost to the Council.  In response to a supplementary question regarding lessons that could have been learnt in the inspection regime, the Portfolio Holder replied that the defects were only revealed when parts of the internal fabric of the building were dismantled when looking for the causes of damp issues, and it would not be reasonable for inspections of this nature to be routinely carried out.

Question 2:

From:  Cllr Harrison

To:  Cllr Binns, Health & Leisure Portfolio Holder

“Do you expect the Task and Finish group, formed recently to look at the health problems associated with sedentary lifestyles, to consider the likely impact of your decision to increase the cost of membership of our Health & Leisure Centres for those aged 60 - 65 or over by £130 a year, or would that be too embarrassing?"

Answer:

The Portfolio Holder replied thatthis matter has been given full consideration by the Community Overview & Scrutiny Panel. The Panel agreed that as people were living healthier lives for longer and the state pension for ‘seniors’ was 65, the policy should reflect that.

In implementing the decision, the Council had taken a fair approach by allowing all existing fitness direct members who are 60 – 65 years of age to have their current (lower) price honoured for as long as they remained members.

The change in policy would provide the Council with income of £52,000 which would be reinvested back into the Health and Leisure Centres.  The Council, whilst achieving a 97% customer satisfaction rate, compared more favourably with other centre membership fees. The Portfolio Holder therefore did not believe that the decision would have a significant impact on customers, particularly as the Council’s Health and Leisure Service offered extensive programmes to encourage residents to participate in active, healthy lifestyles. As such, the Portfolio Holder would not be asking the Task & Finish Group to review the matter again.

Question 3:

From:  Cllr Harrison

To:  Cllr E Heron, Planning & Transportation Portfolio Holder

“Are the decisions you make on car parking charges an expression of divine wisdom, or would they possibly be better decisions if you took the trouble to carry out an annual review, so that they were based on traffic management considerations, as well as setting charges at levels that meant our car parks were fully utilised?”

Answer:

The Portfolio Holder replied that as the matter had been the subject of robust discussion at the recent Environment Overview & Scrutiny Panel, he had nothing more to add.