Minutes:
Questions from members and answers provided were noted as follows:
(a) Question from Councillor Alan Briggs
Councillor Alan Briggs asked the Chair of the Ethics and Engagement Committee the following question:
“As Chair of the Ethics and Engagement Committee you are responsible for the Member Code of Conduct. You mentioned in your report to Council last week about Councillors interacting in a responsible and respectful way, therefore, do you believe it is appropriate for Councillors to repeatedly interrupt other Councillors during Full Council meetings? Quite clearly this is contrary to the new ways of working as set out by the Mayor. Would you have any comment for those members breaking these rules?”
Councillor Adrianna McNulty, Chair of the Ethics and Engagement Committee, said that Councillor Briggs was correct that the Ethics and Engagement Committee was responsible for promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct by members and that the Committee assisted Councillors in observing the members’ Code of Conduct. The Committee also assessed and heard any alleged breach of the Member Code of Conduct but added that it was the Council’s Monitoring Officer, along with the Independent Person, who had the power to determine whether a complaint merited formal investigation, and whether the Code of Conduct had been breached. Councillor McNulty reminded members that it was the Mayor at Full Council who had the absolute power to regulate and control the meeting, and their ruling was absolute. It was therefore the Mayor who had the power to preserve the conduct of all those present at meetings of Full Council.
Councillor Briggs asked, as a supplementary question, whether the Council had considered further training for those members who were unable to follow procedures, as well as Chairs of meetings in order that they could manage situations effectively.
Councillor McNulty made the point that all members were up to date with mandatory training which had been undertaken by the Monitoring Officer. The provision of any further training would be held at the advice of the Monitoring Officer or at the request of individual members.
(b) Question from Councillor Ronald Hills
Councillor Ronald Hills asked the Portfolio for Economic Growth the following question:
“To date, for the Western Growth Corridor project and its previous incarnations, what has been the total spending? Please include both staffing costs and any other associated costs.”
Councillor Neil Murray, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth, reported that since 2007 £2,424,346 had been spent across revenue and capital budgets on the Western Growth Corridor project to date. This did not include grant funding contributions or internal staffing costs.
(c) Question from Councillor Christopher Reid
Councillor Christopher Reid asked the Portfolio Holder for Remarkable Place the following question:
“As you are aware, the Council recently had a consultation on plans to reduce the number of public toilets open across the city. With the recent announcement by the Prime Minister of the ‘roadmap’ for easing of coronavirus restrictions, could the Council commit to postponing any closure decisions on this until later in the year, to help encourage visitors and support our struggling businesses as we move out of these restrictions? In particular, I would like to see the Council commit to reopening toilets in Lucy Tower and Westgate at the very least until after the summer, as these are vital services for many visitors, and we saw with the last reopening that the limited toilet provision was something residents, businesses and visitors found very difficult.
Councillor Bob Bushell, Portfolio Holder for Remarkable Place, reported that the Council had received an excellent response to the public consultation and that consideration had been given to all views expressed as part of that exercise. It had been a useful process and the outcomes would help inform further development of proposals and next steps.
Councillor Bushell explained that the original proposal was to improve the quality of provision in the city centre, bus station, the lower high street and the Bailgate, with other facilities such as those at Lucy Tower Street, Westgate and South Park being opened up for specific events and the facilities at the Central Market being revamped to cater for males and females. Any proposed closures had included urinal facilities that catered only for males. He explained, as part of the proposals, that more signage would be introduced as well as greater use of technology using mobile applications such as ‘toilet finder’ in order that members of the public knew where public conveniences were located and accessible in the city. An alternative to the radar key solution for specific access to disabled facilities was also in the process of being developed.
Councillor Bushell gave an assurance that consideration would be given to what public conveniences could open and when in accordance with the Government’s roadmap in relation to the relaxation of Covid-19 restrictions.
Councillor Reid, as a supplementary question, asked what defined a special event and whether this could be stretched out at least for this year to support the encouragement of people visiting the city. He also asked how much take up in respect of the responses received to the consultation came from people outside of the city, as visitors made up a huge amount of the people that used car parks where some of these facilities were located.
Councillor Bushell reported that the consultation had been widespread and over 800 responses had been received, not all of which had yet been fully examined. One of the key aspects of the proposed improvements was to make facilities much more accessible, especially for people with disabilities.
In terms of events, these related to things such as the Christmas Market or Santa Fun Run in the Bailgate or the fair at South Park, where a significant amount of people were attracted to an area over a relatively short space of time. Councillor Bushell hoped that many events would take place in the city in the future and that consideration of opening up facilities would be sympathetic to them.
(d) Question from Councillor Thomas Dyer
Councillor Thomas Dyer asked the Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth the following question:
“Can you provide an update regarding the current situation with the Usher Gallery and the artefacts? And how do you propose to resolve the ongoing dispute?”
Councillor Neil Murray, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth, wanted to be able to resolve this issue but reported that the City Council had been in discussions with the County Council for some considerable time. The City Council was keen for the Usher Gallery to retain its intended use as a gallery of art and artefacts when originally donated to the city, which he said was unfortunately not necessarily a view shared by the County Council. He was of the view that the significant collection of art and artefacts should remain in Lincoln, with the Usher Gallery kept open as a gallery and that the City Council continued to try and persuade the County Council that this was the most appropriate way forward.
Councillor Thomas Dyer, as a supplementary question, asked what timescale applied to the transferring of art and artefacts from Lincoln.
Councillor Murray responded that he did not think this would happen and that he hoped the two authorities could reach an agreement to prevent the transfer of art and artefacts from Lincoln. He added that the Usher Gallery had been left to the city but as part of Local Government Reorganisation in 1974 responsibility for the building had been signed over to the County Council as opposed to the City Council, whereas the art and artefacts remained the property of the City Council. Councillor Murray made a commitment that discussions and negotiations would continue.
(e) Question from Councillor Hilton Spratt
Councillor Hilton Spratt asked the Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth the following question:
“On Wednesday 3 March the Conservative Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, is expected to announce successful Town's fund bids. If several of Lincoln's bids are successful, what impact do you believe this additional government funding will have on the local Lincoln economy?”
Councillor Neil Murray, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth, reported that Lincoln’s bid comprised of £25 million which, if awarded, would be a huge boost to the local economy. He hoped the bid was accepted as it would transform the central market and city square in particular. Councillor Murray also made reference to the County Council’s bid for improvements to the Sincil Bank area of Park Ward, especially infrastructure in terms of improving traffic flow and addressing rat-running which was a significant issue in that part of the city.
As a supplementary question, Councillor Spratt asked Councillor Murray if this money would be well spent and whether he agreed that capital investment should be undertaken on a big scale in the city, together with the county and country as a whole, in order to create employment and growth.
Councillor Murray agreed with Councillor Spratt in that Lincoln needed the kind of capital investment included as part of the Town Deal fund which would really benefit its economy. He provided an assurance that the City Council and partners had worked well together, with the Government, to ensure that this funding was invested in the right projects that would make a significant difference.
(f) Question from Councillor Bill Mara
Councillor Bill Mara asked the Portfolio Holder for Customer Experience and Review the following question:
“As a percentage how many customer interactions are via phone, email, web form, in person or other?”
Councillor Christopher Burke, Portfolio Holder for Customer Experience and Review, provided the following statistical information in response to the question:
2018/19;
· 119,223 telephone calls – 78.61%
· 20,027 face to face interactions – 13.22%
· 12,388 emails – 8.17%
· equating to a total of 151,658 communications.
2019/20;
· 133,923 telephone calls – 82.12%
· 14,878 face to face interactions – 9.12%
· 14,286 emails – 8.76%
· equating to a total of 163,087 communications.
2020/21 (up to the end of January 2021);
· 89,580 telephone calls – 81.19%
· 127 face to face interactions – 0.12%
· 20,633 emails – 18.70%
· Equating to a total of 101,340 communications.
Councillor Mara asked, as a supplementary question, what strategy was in place to encourage more online interactions and whether customers would receive the same service whichever way they chose to engage with the Council.
Councillor Burke reported that considerable investment had been made in the City Council’s IT, supporting an increase in virtual interactions and a more flexible approach to the way in which the Council provided its services, which had taken place even before the Covid-19 pandemic but accelerated significantly as a consequence. He added that the Council still had its telephone service in place which would be maintained for those who had difficulties accessing the internet, with the Council ensuring that however people contacted the Council they would receive the same very high standards of service.
(g) Question from Councillor Edmund Strengiel
Councillor Edmund Strengiel asked the Portfolio Holder for Reducing Inequality the following question:
“As the portfolio holder responsible for CCTV, I am sure you value the importance of CCTV for policing our High Street. Will you protect our CCTV from any potential city council budget cuts?”
A significant amount of work had been undertaken to protect staff from infection during the pandemic in order that the CCTV service could continue to be provided by the Council. Moving forward, the authority continued to do all it could to protect the service which had become so vital.