Agenda item

Councillor Questions On Notice

To answer questions received under Council Procedure Rule 6.2.

 

NB      In accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6.2.9 there will be a maximum of 30 minutes allowed for questions and answers.  Any question not answered within the 30 minute time limit will receive a written reply within 5 working days.

Minutes:

The following questions were asked under Council Procedure Rule 6.2.2:-

 

(a)       Councillor P Scott asked the following question of Councillor Richard Overton, Cabinet Member for Housing, Transport and Infrastructure.

 

"There was an increasing problem with dog owners allowing their dogs off leads on sports pitches across the borough. In Newport the local football and rugby teams had to regularly clear the pitches of dog faeces before a game could commence. It was unhealthy and antisocial.

 

Would the Council consider a new bylaw to keep all dogs on leads on and around sports areas throughout Telford and Wrekin?"

 

Councillor Overton responded that the Council already issued Fixed Penalty Notices for those people that allowed their dogs to foul without cleaning up after them, however, work was already underway to enable the Council to commence consultation on the use of Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) to deal with dog related offences in the coming months. The PSPOs were made under the Antisocial Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 and could be used to impose a number of requirements relating to dogs to prevent activity which may be detrimental to the local community’s quality of life. Some of the requirements that the Council might consult on included:

 

      Exclusion of dogs from certain areas

      Requiring a person to pick up after their dog

      Dogs to be kept on leads in specific areas

      Prohibiting dogs from entering into certain areas (parks / play areas)

      Restricting the number of dogs that could be walked by one dog walker

      Any other measures which would have a positive impact to prevent and deter the detrimental quality of life in the local area

 

Following consultation it was hoped that any PSPOs made would reduce anti-social behaviour and promote responsible dog ownership.  However, in the event that somebody failed to comply with the requirements of a PSPO, there were powers under the legislation to issue Fixed Penalty Notices or commence prosecution proceedings against them.

 

Councillor Scott asked for a written copy of the response and to be kept updated with progress.

 

(b)       Councillor S Bentley asked the following question of Councillor David Wright, Cabinet Member for Housing, Transport and Infrastructure

 

“On how many occasions had the Flood Defence barriers been erected along the Wharfage since being acquired.”

 

Councillor D Wright responded that records had shown there had been at least 17 separate deployments of the flood barriers along the Wharfage at Ironbridge since they were secured in 2004 and Members would not be surprised to learn that four of those deployments had taken place within the last 12 months.

 

Due to the temporary nature of the flood defences, the Council was required to mobilise staff at short notice to install the barrier in partnership with the Environment Agency who owned and stored them.  The Council also provide a rota of employees to staff the barriers 24/7 to ensure there was public safety in place.  There was a cost to the Council in the region of £20,000 for each deployment.

 

Although the flood barriers offered protection during normal flooding events specifically for residents along the Wharfage, there were a number of properties along the Gorge at Jackfield, Ferry Road and Coalford which were not affected or protected by the temporary barrier and many of these properties had been flooded in the last two weeks and that was why the Council needed to continue to lobby to look at how we could try to protect those properties and not just the Wharfage.

 

By way of supplement Councillor Bentley noted media reports which stated that part of the reason the barriers buckled as the unevenness of the surface.  If they had been deployed 17 times, why had this not previously been recognised.

 

Councillor Wright stated that the problem was the sheer level and volume of water passing through the Gorge which was unprecedented and it had been the first time the point had been reached where the barriers would potentially be topped out.  The volume of water was significant.  The roadway had been in good condition over the last few years.  The temporary barriers had served well but this event showed more permanent barriers would be needed in this location which fitted in with the heritage requirements of the World Heritage Site.   This would cost a significant amount of resource that would need to come from government in terms of protecting residents in the locality, and for the communities previously outlined that were not currently protected by the temporary barrier system.

 

(c)        Councillor S Bentley asked the following question of Councillor L D Carter, Cabinet Member for Finance, Commercial Services and the Economy (Lead Cabinet Member for the CSE Inquiry)

 

“What measures have been discussed by the Cabinet, to bring new impetus to the Independent CSE Inquiry.”

 

Councillor Carter responded that the Inquiry, as per their public update in the previous week, had been making solid progress.  He would encourage all Members to follow their website for their updates.

 

The Council had disclosed huge amounts of information to the Inquiry, as had the Police and other agencies, amounting to over 135,000 documents. The majority of these – around 780,000 pages worth - had been provided in a timely fashion by the Council.

 

The inquiry was also speaking to witnesses. The Council were not cited on who or how many, nor should we be.

 

The inquiry were encouraging more people to come forward and the Council would give voice to that request, as it had done continually, including using the events planned across CSE Awareness Day in Southwater, Telford Train Station and Oakengates.

 

In addition, Members should note that during the autumn, the Council commissioned in record time the services of an out of area organisation or significant quality and reputation to provide comprehensive counselling support to be people giving evidence to the Inquiry.  As set out in the previous year, this was expected to be an eighteen month long forensic process.  Eversheds and Tom Crowther QC were doing their job diligently, professionally and most importantly independently.

 

By way of supplement, Councillor Bentley asked if there was more that could be done to encourage victims to come forward?

 

Councillor Carter responded that the Council had continually urged anyone with information to come forward to the Inquiry.  The Council would continue to work with various groups who were promoting people to come forward.  The Cabinet were content that Eversheds and Tom Crowther QC were going about their work in a professional, diligent and independent manner.