9
In terms of Standing Order No. 12 there were submitted the following questions:-
(a) a question by Councillor Donald L. Reid to the Cabinet Member for Place in the following terms:-
“The Road systems in North Ayrshire including those which are the responsibility of Scotland Transerv have been badly affected by the rain, snow and long period of ice which prevailed between November 2017 and January 2018. I would invite the Cabinet member for Place to comment on:
(1) What plans NAC Roads have to bring our Roads generally in North Ayrshire back up to an acceptable standard with any specific comments on Roads within the Garnock Valley area which has suffered disproportionately because the Valley suffered with longer periods of snow and ice during November 2017 - January 2018?
(2) What is the likely cost of these repairs?
(3) Is NAC considering asking the Scottish Government to provide additional funding to be spent exclusively on assisting in bringing our crumbling roads network back to an acceptable stand and if not, why not?”
Councillor Montgomerie thanked the Member for his question and responded in the following terms:-
“(1) In line with best practice the Council has adopted an Asset Management approach to road maintenance and undertakes an annual programme commensurate with the allocated budget. The prolonged spell of poor weather during the current winter has caused significant damage to the road network. To support our roads team additional contractors have been engaged to assist in repairing potholes that have developed over the on-going cold spell.
With specific reference to the Garnock Valley, in addition to on-going pot-hole repairs wider resurfacing work is being arranged for Auldlea Road, Laigh Road and Beech Drive in Beith and Milton Road in Kilbirnie and the rural road known locally as the Coldstream Road.
The road maintenance programme which is being developed for 2018/19 has taken cognisance of a number of roads across the area, that have deteriorated more quickly than expected as a result of the continued poor weather. The details of projects being included in the programme will be presented to Cabinet for approval on the 20 March 2018 following agreement of the Council’s budget.
(2) The Council’s Roads Asset Management Plan agreed in January 2017 estimated, at that time, a maintenance backlog figure of £30.9m. The above average deterioration attributable to the prolonged cold spell over the current winter will have increased this figure.
The specific works currently being arranged within the Garnock Valley at Auldlea Road, Laigh Road and Beech Drive in Beith and Milton Road in Kilbirnie along with the rural road known locally as the Coldstream Road are estimated at £115,000. In addition to this, the additional cost of employing contractors to assist in repairing potholes in the Garnock Valley is approximately £30,000.
(3) The Leader of the Council has written to the Finance Minister on several occasions regarding the budget settlement and the requirement to provide additional funding to enable the Council to invest in its services.”
Councillor Donald L. Reid asked that his appreciation of the work done by the Roads Services be recorded.
(b) a question by Councillor Donald L. Reid to the Cabinet Member for Place in the following terms:-
“Can the Cabinet Member for Place tell this full Council meeting how many families have been evicted from NAC properties between 1.1.17 and 31.12.17 (or whatever period it’s easier to get figures for).”
Councillor Montgomerie thanked the Member for his question and responded in the following terms:-
“The Council only evicts tenants as a last resort when all other avenues to support tenants have been exhausted. Unfortunately eviction is unavoidable in some instances such as where tenants continually refuse to make arrangements to pay their rent, engage in continuous or serious anti-social behaviour or seriously or continually breach tenancy agreements.
The approach taken by the Council to support tenants to pay their rent and manage their tenancy in a responsible way enables the Council to have one of the lowest eviction rates in Scotland.
In the calendar year 2017, 57 evictions took place of which 51 were for rent arrears, 6 for anti-social behaviour and 1 for breach of tenancy.”
Councillor Donald L. Reid asked that his appreciation of the work done by the Housing Service in seeking to avoid evictions, be recorded.
Councillors Burns, Hill and McTiernan joined the meeting during consideration of this item.
(c) a question by Councillor McNicol to the Leader of the Council in the following terms:-
“At a Special Meeting of North Ayrshire Council held on 20th December, 2017 a Resolution was passed and agreed by all Councillors to exclude the press and public on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 6,8,and 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 7a of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1973.
Will the Leader of the Council inform members if an enquiry has been carried out to establish the identity of the Labour insider, who according to a report in the Irvine Herald, allegedly passed confidential information to the reporter regarding information disclosed at the Special meeting?”
Councillor Cullinane thanked the Member for his question and responded in the following terms:-
“No enquiry has been carried out to establish the identity of the Labour insider quoted in the Irvine Herald. This is because he or she sought advice from the Council’s Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer in advance of providing a response to the paper. The Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer were happy the information supplied did not breach the Councillors Code of Conduct, nor release confidential information. The Insider did not confirm that such a proposal had been discussed.
The response to the Irvine Herald covered the following important points:-
I can’t confirm that the Council considered any ‘deal’.
Austerity is placing unprecedented pressure on the Council’s budget. However, that has not dented the Labour Administration’s ambition to deliver real change for our communities. What it means is that we need to be even more innovative in seeking opportunities that match our ambition.
We believe it is vital to the future of our area that we are bold and radical enough to consider issues of ownership of local assets or other commercial opportunities to bring in new revenue streams to the Council in order to fight austerity.
It would never be about owning a shopping centre but about the regeneration opportunities that it offered.
Purchasing a centre would not have placed new pressures on the Council’s reducing budget but rather it would pay for itself and provide an annual income to the Council. This is because the Council is able to borrow at a low rate through the Public Works Loan Board, so any income stream from the purchased asset will pay the loan back and deliver additional funds for investment.
By owning a centre the profits that it generated would no longer go to a private corporation but would instead come to the Council and allow us to invest that money in the local area. Ownership of a centre could open many doors for the local area.
The profits that any centre/asset generates would enable the Council to deliver millions of pounds of investment in the local area over the next decade and beyond.
My Administration would want to see a number of investments across North Ayrshire communities and any surplus funds from a good proposal could be used to:
- build a new multi-screen cinema, probably in Irvine because of the footfall
- aligned to the cinema a new food court could be developed, which could address the current recognised shortage of enough places to eat around the centre of Irvine
- invest in tired and run-down facilities like Ruby Tuesday’s, or to upgrade and modernise the Forum (neither of which is possible because we don’t own them and don’t have the funding to support a compulsory purchase order)
- further enhance and develop Saltcoats Town Centre
- take forward proposals emerging for Lochshore in Kilbirnie
- create a Town Centre Regeneration Fund
With the right proposal these are all possible, not least as the Council has an excellent track record of using such funding to leverage additional external funding to maximise regeneration investment. The potential to leverage tens of millions of pounds of investment for these areas can be very high with the right ‘deal’.
Also, once any loan is paid off then the asset is owned by the Council. At that stage it could be sold to generate tens of millions of capital investment or ALL of the income then becomes available for investment in North Ayrshire communities and town centres.
Again, I cannot confirm that there was a ‘deal’ discussed, however, as you can see from my answer above if there was a ‘deal’ the potential to do so much more across North Ayrshire communities is huge.
It is hard to think, if such a proposal was in front of the Council, why anyone would vote against it.
My Administration will continue to challenge Council Officers to bring forward bold and innovative proposals with the potential to allow for greater investment in our communities and town centres. I hope that when we do that the whole Council will back them.”
Councillor McNicol sought and received confirmation the Council’s Monitoring Officer that the business of the Special Council meeting held on 20 December 2018 remained confidential.
As a supplementary question, Councillor McNicol asked the Leader to inform Members of all the costs associated with the proposal to acquire a centre as discussed at the Special Meeting, including the preparation of due diligence reporting costs, legal fees, survey costs and any other associated costs. Councillor McNicol also asked that the Leader advise from which budgets the payments had been made and who authorised those payments. He requested that this information be provided before 2.00 p.m.
The Chief Executive advised Councillor McNicol that his question was in breach of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, but indicated that the information he had requested could be shared confidentially with Members.
Councillor Murdoch joined the meeting during consideration of this item.
(d) a question by Councillor Gallacher to the Cabinet Member for Place in the following terms:-
““Neatebox” is a system worked through an app that helps blind people, and the less mobile, like wheelchair users, to locate, and operate pedestrian crossings and the like, by using their phone. The app enables them to request to cross, without having to find, or attempt to reach the button on the crossing that the rest of us would press. The software link for this gets built into the existing road crossing boxes retrospectively.
There are already a few local authorities who have taken up this service, and I am led to believe that there are more in the pipeline who are almost at the rolling out stage. Given that Irvine High Street is in the process of being done up, would the Cabinet Member for Place please have a serious look into this service, in order to make the day to day lives of our sightless and mobile impaired residents just that bit easier, in particular, when it comes to crossing roads.”
Councillor Montgomerie thanked the Member for his question and responded in the following terms:-
“The Council’s pedestrian crossings meet all appropriate regulations regarding accessibility. However it is recognised that there are many developing technologies that may increase the ease with which they can be used by our communities.
Indicative prices of £200,000 have been received from one supplier to purchase the hardware required to retrofit the 274 push button crossings within the area. Any on-going maintenance requirements would need to be added to this figure.
Officers will work with the North Ayrshire Access Panel to identify appropriate technology and funding implications for consideration within the public realm improvements within Irvine.”
As a supplementary question, Councillor Gallacher made reference to the matter having been raised by a constituent who had in mind eleven particular town centre crossings.
Councillor Montgomerie responded by indicating that he would be happy to meet to discuss the matter further.
(e) a question by Councillor Davidson to the Leader of the Council in the following terms:-
“Can the Council Leader assure me that he will not be recommending further cuts to classroom assistant posts in his budget proposals later today?”
Councillor Cullinane thanked the Member for his question and responded by advising that the Labour Administration’s policy of reversing the SNP Administration’s trend of increasing the unearmarked reserves and instead maintaining them at 2% of the revenue budget, meant that £2.3m could be used to mitigate cuts, which in turns meant that for the second year in a row he could confirm that he would propose an allocated budget of £1,705,311 for classroom assistants, the same as it was in 2016/17 under the SNP Administration.
As a supplementary question, Councillor Davidson asked the Leader for confirmation that no further cuts were proposed.
Councillor Cullinane responded by confirming that the he would propose the same budget as last year, and there were no proposals to cut the budget.
(f) a question from Councillor Davidson to the Leader of the Council in the following terms:-
“Can the Portfolio holder for Finance provide me with answers to the following questions:-
1) What was the public response level to the budget consultation?
2) How much did it cost?
3) Do you think it was the best method of engaging with the public?”
Councillor Cullinane thanked the Member for his question and responded in the following terms:-
“1) 207 people responded to the survey
2) Total cost £11,208.
3) Engagement with residents on the budget reflects the wider commitment of the Council to work in partnership with our communities. Increasingly councils are using tools like “The Budget Challenge” to engage with communities on options to bridge funding gaps.”
As a supplementary question, Councillor Davidson asked whether other methods of consultation would be considered in the future in order to engage with the wider public, for details of the numbers who completed at libraries compared to on-line, and if the Leader felt that his public tweets to a Scottish Government Minister could be considered professional.
Councillor Cullinane responded by expressing the view that his own social media performance was more professional than that of the Member, and by confirming his willingness to receive feedback on future public engagement on budget matters.
(g) a question by Councillor Brahim to the Cabinet Member for Place in the following terms:-
“Can the Portfolio Holder for Place confirm when the upgrade of the B714 will take place?”
Councillor Montgomerie responded in the following terms:-
“The Ayrshire Transport Summit on the 8th February 2018 identified the B714 as a project for consideration in determining the key priorities for transport infrastructure proposals as part of the on-going development of the Ayrshire Growth Deal. The projects will now be considered as part of a Regional Transport Appraisal.”
Councillor Brahim thanked the Cabinet Member for his response and asked the Council to note that the date of the summit was 9 February and not 8 February, as had been stated.
(h) a question by Councillor Murdoch to the Cabinet Member for Place in the following terms:-
“For the Cabinet Member – Place
What do North Ayrshire Council intend to do about the poor quality, below expectations, reduced budget prom surface, that a very large number of residents and visitors are complaining about on Largs Shore Front?”
Councillor Gallagher, in his capacity as Cabinet Member for the Economy, responded in the following terms:-
“As the procuring service the Executive Director (Economy and Communities) has written to all North Coast members regarding the works to the promenade and shelters.
The letter shows clearly that Members were consulted. The specification was accepted and acceptable, and we agreed in advance it was what we wanted. Had we had more funding, we would have used a higher quality finish, but the finish does meet the required standards.”
A copy of a letter dated 6 February 2018 to Councillor Marshall (and copied to all North Coast Elected Members) was circulated at the meeting, together with the officer report appended to the original correspondence.
As a supplementary question, Councillor Murdoch made reference to views expressed by the public at a Public Realm meeting that futuristic street furniture should be rejected in favour of a good quality promenade, and asked whether the Cabinet Member was satisfied with the surface provided.
Councillor Gallagher referred to the decision to select a more basic finish than would otherwise have been possible with additional funding and advised that the surface and finish ultimately provided had been the subject of regular consultation with local Members. He expressed the view that the surface would provide a robust and long lasting promenade and that, although small areas did require attention, the overall standard met the specification and was acceptable. Councillor Gallagher also referred to similar work completed in Fairlie and advised that the appearance of Largs surface would likewise soften over time. Councillor Gallagher concluded his response by advising that promenade would be monitored over the next twelve months and remedial work undertaken as necessary.