To consider questions (if any) by members of the Council of which the appropriate notice has been given to the Assistant Director (Corporate and Contracted Services).
Decision:
Full details can be found in the minutes under Questions.
Minutes:
Question for Councillor Andrew Williams from Councillor Sally Symington:
At the last meeting of the Full Council, you agreed to write follow up letters to the Police and Crime Commissioner and Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police as no response had been received to the following questions agreed by the Council on 17 November 2021 to the following:
The dual issues of Violence Against Women and Girls manifested in the press by the high profile cases relating amongst other things to the late convicted sex offender, Jeffery Epstein, and his cohort; and the recent conviction of a Hertfordshire police officer for corruption and making indecent images of children and charges against another serving officer for raping a child under 13 highlight the ongoing importance of this issue.
Q1. Could the Leader confirm the date the follow up letter was sent and the response received from the Police and Crime Commissioner and Chief Constable?
Q2. Does the Leader think it is appropriate that it took two letters for the Chief Constable and the Police and Crime Commissioner to respond to such an important issue?
Responses from Councillor Williams:
Response to Q1. The original letter was sent by post, the follow up was sent by email on 10th February and the response was sent on 16th February.
Response to Q2. I agree it was a long time to receive a response as the initial letter was sent in December and it would have been better to receive a response sooner.
Question for CouncillorAndrew Williams from CouncillorAdrian England:
At a public meeting of Health in Dacorum on 8th December 2021, an apparent commitment was made verbally by West Herts Hospital Trust, to conduct a comparative costing of a Greenfield hospital site. This exchange was recorded on the MS Teams recording but has not appeared in the subsequent Minutes. There appears to be some question of interpretation as to whether or not this offer was hypothetical or actual.
At a subsequent meeting of several Dacorum-based hospital campaign groups with the Health and Social Care Secretary of State, together with and arranged by Hemel Hempstead’s MP, campaigners had sought to rely on this witnessed commitment and indeed to refer to it in the meeting with the SoS. This was not possible, due to it being missing from the Minutes and the MS Teams recording not being readily-available.
In view of the critical importance to Dacorum residents of this issue, does the Leader of the Council agree that it is regrettable that this MS Teams recording of a public meeting was not simply published on YouTube and/or the Dacorum Borough Council website, for full transparency?
What is the Council-agreed policy and procedure for the making and storing of MS Teams and video recordings? How long are meeting recordings retained, for which meetings, and can the Leader confirm these are all now available publicly, either published at the time or in response to an FOI request?
Having equipped the Forum Council Chamber and Committee rooms with robot-cameras, will the Council now adopt a practice of pre-promoting public participation in public Full Council and scrutiny (OSC) meetings, including via joining MS Teams meetings, streaming video recordings of meetings live (subject to a short delay up to a minute) and through the clipping of entire meeting items as separate segments for digestible watch-back?
Response from Councillor Williams:
With regard the meeting of Health in Dacorum on 8th December, a query against the minutes was lodged, in response the Chair of the meeting listened to the recording and reviewed it against the minutes produced; it is the view of the Chair that the minutes are an accurate representation of the discussion. The meeting was recorded on MS Teams and this allowed the Chair to confirm the accuracy of the minutes.
The Council has invested significantly to upgrade its facilities to enable us to move to support fully virtual and hybrid meetings and decision making and subsequently look at how we could best support the Council and its Members in returning to meetings taking place in person as the emergency legislation changed around virtual decision making.
Our priority throughout this has been to ensure the safety of officers and elected Members in attending these meetings and carrying out their statutory duties; resource has rightly been focused on ensuring all practical measures are in place to facilitate this. We are now reaching a position where we can move from a reactive to a proactive approach and understandably officers require time to assess what has worked well, what requires improvement and ensure the infrastructure and technology we have in place is able to deliver.
The Council will continue to develop polices, practices and procedures that support the streaming of meetings to enable this to be rolled out more widely and officers will consult members as these policies are developed. In the meantime, we continue to allow pubic participation in person, as well as making meetings available remotely to view either by way of MS Teams or live streaming. We continue to produce minutes as an accurate record of discussion and decisions. Members are also able to access any MS Teams recordings by viewing the chat box of the said meeting where the recording should be available for them to view.
Recordings are currently retained for 3 months but this is being reviewed and will be included in the policies mentioned above.
Question for CouncillorGriffiths from CouncillorGarrick Stevens:
It is known there are a number of refugees from Afghanistan and their families being cared for in the Borough.
While it is welcome that accommodation costs will continue to be met pending their long-term resettlement, the Government has made an announcement that it will cease to provide toiletries and similar for such refugees.
Has the Council considered, under the circumstances, what measures might be undertaken so that toiletries and such like can continue to be made available?
Response from Councillor Griffiths:
Hertfordshire currently has 3 ‘bridging’ hotels being used as temporary accommodation for a number of families from Afghanistan while they await long term resettlement. Hertfordshire County Council are providing wraparound support, working with DBC and the East of England LGA and the voluntary and community sector to help residents access vital health, education and employability support for locations in Dacorum.
Initially the Home Office provided funding to each of the hotels to purchase items such as toiletries for residents whilst staying at the hotels. The Home Office recently removed this facility and hotel residents were notified that they would need to purchase these items themselves. This change was discussed by the Strategic Migration Steering Group and where needed families will continue to be supplied toiletries and other essential items from volunteers and donations coordinated by Hertfordshire County Council. All residents in the hotels are supported to claim Universal Credit whilst they are seeking work and housing costs, meals and bus passes continue to be provided by HCC and partners.
Dacorum Borough Council have committed to find accommodation for 4 families from Afghanistan to ensure those who assisted the army and face risk to life would be able to apply for resettlement. Support for these families is being provided by the Refugee Council to ensure they receive access to health, wellbeing, education and employment services. Additionally Community and Voluntary groups and organisations continue to provide them, as well as other residents in need, support to ensure they are not in financial hardship and are able to participate in their local communities. This support does not detract from our work in supporting homelessness in our borough, or those on the existing housing register.
Question for Councillor Graham Barratt from Councillor Adrian England:
Earlier this month members received a list of trees that Dacorum will have planted over the winter 2021-22 period.
Dacorum organise tree planting in accordance with a list that we maintain of potential borough-wide planting sites. Sites that have been listed ‘tree-free’ the longest are considered first in our deliberations each year. Tree replacement prior to that 2019 was ad hoc and based on visual amenity and Officer opinion.
Dacorum have 249 planting sites still listed without a date of tree removal, so those are being addressed as a priority each time we organise planting.
We are planting about 70 – 90 Street or housing trees per year, with an overall total of over 900+ trees on our potential planting list.
I have residents who have been asking since 2018 for felled trees in Hardy and Springfield Roads to be replaced. All of us can probably say the same.
As I was advised, I relayed at the time that immediate replacement was not immediately possible – but it is now 2022!
This means that it is taking seven years to replace some lost trees, in streets and residential amenity areas.
Q1. How many street or housing trees were planted during each of the last seven years, since 2015?
Q2. How many each year were substantial sapling specimens and how many were whips?
Q3. What is the survival rate for successful establishment of street and housing trees, in each of those years?
Q4. By how much does he expect the 249 site removal and replanting deficit to have been improved by next year?
Responses from Councillor Barrett
Response to Q1:
All below are ‘standard’ sized trees
2014/15 46
2015/16 44
2016/17 32
2017/18 67
2018/19 68
2019/20 70
2020/21 173 / 1125 whips
2021/22 96 / 900 whips / 17 fruit trees / 400+ hedging plants
Response to Q2: Detailed in response to Q1.
Response to Q3: We don’t monitor survival rates specifically.
Response to Q4: We don’t have a specific target. We are planting trees at a much greater pace than we ever have and will continue to do so.
Question for Councillor Andrew Williams from Councillor Sally Symington
The Audit report identified that Procurement Standing Orders valued at £6.9m were set aside (waived) 40 times during 2020/21. The failure to obtain competitive quotes in some instances for procurement awards in excess of £25,000 was also identified.
The report additionally highlighted that there is no formal oversight in place by way of reporting such incidences to Committee or Cabinet.
Could the portfolio holder identify the actions being undertaken to ensure compliance with the Council’s own Procurement Standing Orders? And confirm that oversight will be introduced to ensure transparency, accountability and fairness in the procurement process?
Response from Councillor Williams:
The commissioning and procurement standing orders provide advice and guidance for officers and members who are responsible for taking any steps that may lead to a contract being entered into. These standing orders will always apply unless a suspension is approved. An exemption to comply with the standing orders may only be made by the Cabinet or a Portfolio Holder responsible for the service affected by the contract. The suspension of special circumstances justifying the exception must be recorded in the full cabinet minutes or the portfolio decision so there is accountability for the decisions. In response to the audit report the recommendation is the following processes will be introduced from April 2022 to ensure that formal oversight of when the PSO’s are set aside and non-compliant activities are currently presented to the finance and resources overview and scrutiny committee every quarter. The council has also subsequently set up a commercial board, part of their remit is to review all procurement over £75,000 which matches the financial threshold for seeking a tender.
Question for Councillor Alan Anderson from Councillor Sally Symington
There have been a number of complaints about the mud on the road along Shootersway, in particular outside the Old Orchard site. This is causing tension and confusion regarding the work of the contractor on the neighbouring site at the rear of Hanburys.
Could the Portfolio Holder confirm there is a Construction Management Plan in place with the contractor at Old Orchard and what enforcement can take place in the event of breaches?
Response from Councillor Anderson:
Following the receipt of further information from the applicants the Council has now recommended the formal discharge of the outstanding planning condition relating to the Construction Management Plan associated with the development of the Old Orchard at the LA4 site. A decision should be issued later today.
Both developers have been contacted regarding their responsibilities to undertake wheel washing of vehicles prior to them entering the highway from the development site.
Officers will inspect the site to check whether this is being undertaken.
The DBC case officer has also been forwarded an email exchange between the developers at the Old Orchard and a Licensing Enforcement Officer within the Highway Network Management team at the County Council. So the County Council are monitoring from an enforcement prospective in relation to the requirements under the Highways Act 1980 (as amended).