In accordance with Council Procedure Rule No 9.2 to allow Members to ask questions about Council activities. The replies to any such questions will be given by the Chair of the Council or relevant Committee or the appropriate Cabinet Member. Questions must be received in writing or by email to the Monitoring Officer by 12 noon seven clear working days before the meeting.
(a) Question submitted by Cllr Tracy Reader to Cllr Martin Thacker MBE, Leader of the Council:-
“In times of austerity and Council budgets being squeezed can the Leader of the Council tell us how much it is costing the Council to rebrand and to also redecorate the Council corridors?”
(b) Question submitted by Cllr Nigel Barker to Cllr Charlotte Cupit, Portfolio Holder for Environment:-
“Given that the Local Plan process has been paused, what assurances can you give the residents of North East Derbyshire that this will not lead to more opportunistic development in the District?”
Minutes:
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule No 9.2 Members were permitted to ask the Chair of the Council or relevant Committee or the appropriate Cabinet Member questions about Council activities.
Two questions had been submitted by Members under Procedure Rule 9.2 for this meeting.
(a) Question submitted by Cllr Tracy Reader to Cllr Martin Thacker MBE, Leader of the Council:-
“In times of austerity and Council budgets being squeezed can the Leader of the Council tell us how much it is costing the Council to rebrand and to also redecorate the Council corridors”?
Councillor T Reader was invited to ask her question of Councillor M E Thacker MBE as set out in the agenda for the meeting.
In responding to the question Councillor M E Thacker MBE advised that redecoration had taken place to areas of the Mill Lane building in accordance with the programme of repairs and maintenance of the building agreed and designated by the previous Administration. This was at a cost of £500.
Councillor M E Thacker MBE clarified that the Council had not be re-branded. Under the Labour Administration re-brand away from using the Council’s Coat of Arms had incurred significant cost and also removed links to the Council’s heritage. In re-adopting the branding of the Council using the Coat of Arms the Conservative Administration had restored the civic identity of the Council as established during re-organisation in the 1970s. Councillor M E Thacker MBE confirmed that a large Coat of Arms, that had been mounted at the previous Council building located at Saltergate, Chesterfield, had been abandoned during the move to Mill Lane in Wingerworth. This Coat of Arms had now been re-located to the Council building at a cost of £1,400. Re-adoption of the previous branding was taking place within existing resources and budgets.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
In exercising her right to ask a supplementary question of the Leader of the Council, Councillor T Reader queried whether the Leader considered the work undertaken to-date was value for money.
In his response the Leader of the Council expressed his view that the expenditure made to move the Coat of Arms to Mill Lane was a cost of rectifying a mistake made by the previous Administration.
(b) Question submitted by Cllr Nigel Barker to Cllr Charlotte Cupit, Portfolio Holder for Environment:-
“Given that the Local Plan process has been paused, what assurances can you give to the residents of North East Derbyshire that this will not lead to more opportunistic development in the District”?
Councillor N Barker was invited to ask his question to Councillor C Cupit as the Portfolio Holder for Environment.
Councillor C Cupit in responding to his question advised that the pause in the Local Plan process would allow Members and Officers to take stock of the implications of the areas within the Plan that the Administration were unhappy with and Council would be advised in due course of the next steps to be taken.
In regard to opportunistic development within the District, Councillor C Cupit advised that inappropriate developments had been sanctioned under the previous Administration and pausing the Local Plan was an opportunity to resolve this.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
In exercising his right to ask a supplementary question of Councillor C Cupit, Councillor N Barker made note to the diminishing weight that could be given to local plans in regard to planning cases caused by the pause in the Local Plan process. In her response Councillor C Cupit placed responsibility on the Labour Administration for the failure to put in place an adequate Local Plan for a number of years.