Agenda item

Questions to the Cabinet Member (Finance, Property and Assets)

Councillor Harry Hancock asked the Cabinet Member how the multi-use games area at Penwortham Priory Academy, which had been paid for through contributions from Penwortham Town Council and Section 106 monies, would become the property of the school.

In response, the Cabinet Member acknowledged a complicated backstory and suggested that the Scrutiny Committee would be best placed to undertake a review into this project.

Councillor Alan Ogilvie queried why Purcell Consultants had not been retained to work on the Worden Hall project, following the recent appointment of GCS Quantity Surveyors. The Cabinet Member explained in response that there had been some concerns with the cost of retaining Purcell and that GCS had experience with similar-value contracts.

Councillor Ogilvie requested three examples of such contracts held by GCS, which the Cabinet Member committed to providing outside of the meeting.

A question was submitted by a member of the public, Mr Derbyshire, as follows:

“Councillor Tomlinson,

This statement was read out not by Margaret Thatcher but Sir Keir Starmer commenting on the governments awarding of contracts and I quote.

“This is not the Prime Minister’s money, its taxpayers’ money. The PM may well not know the value of the pound in his pocket, but the people who send us here do, and they expect us to spend it wisely,”

Councillor Tomlinson when I send my rates money to SRBC I expect it, as Sir Keir Starmer stated, to be spent wisely, and the process of that spend to be fully visible to the ratepayer.

I consider the awarding contracts “behind closed doors” to be an affront to the ratepayer.

It may be considered magnanimous of you to award contracts to local businesses but I consider that does not satisfy the economic necessitates of good transparent business practice.

Another issue that may arise is the problem of perceived corruption. I am not accusing you of corruption but this method of awarding building contracts leaves you open to accusations that you may be.

My Questions are as follows:-

1. Will you cancel the awarded contract and put out the scheme to tender?

2. If you won’t cancel the project will you publish to the ratepayers its cost?”

In response, the Cabinet Member confirmed that the fees associated with appointing GCS were appropriate but that the actual amount could not be disclosed at the current time.

Questions to the Cabinet Member (Communities, Social Justice and Wealth Building)

A member of the public, Mr Derbyshire, submitted a question to the Cabinet Member as follows:

“Councillor Gelder

I live in Penwortham and I am a little confused where I address my council issues.

Do I contact Penwortham Hub, Penwortham Town Council, South Ribble Council, Lancashire CC or my MP? (At least I lost my MEP).

I am a true believer in devolved democracy but even I believe this level of representation is going too far.

My Questions are as follows:-

1. Do you agree with me that this multiple level of democracy is taking thing too far?

2. If not will you provided a detailed list of which committee etc. I contact if I wish to solve a problem I consider is a council issue. i.e. who cuts the grass etc.”

In her response, the Cabinet Member confirmed her position that it would be difficult to have too much democracy. Clarification was provided on which authorities were responsible for what.

The Cabinet Member further advised Mr Derbyshire and all South Ribble residents to contact the South Ribble Gateway with any questions in relation to services provided by all local government authorities in South Ribble. It was also reiterated that the Department for Work and Pensions, Citizens Advice Bureau and the Gateway all operate from the Civic Centre to support residents through the ‘One Front Door approach’.

Questions to the Cabinet Member (Planning, Regeneration and Business Support)

Councillor Alan Ogilvie asked, on behalf of a resident, if the Cabinet Member would respond to an email query sent by the resident regarding the full costs of the public inquiry into the Wainhomes application at Chain House Lane, Whitestake.

The Cabinet Member responded to Councillor Ogilvie by clarifying that he had not received any correspondence from the resident since late last year. The query had been forwarded onto officers, who the Cabinet Member understood had provided the resident with the information they required, but he would ask officers to resend this information.