To receive any petitions, deputations and questions received from Members of the Public in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 217.

The total time allowed for this item shall be 30 minutes.  Petitions, declarations and questions shall be dealt with in the order in which they are received.  Question may also be submitted at short notice by giving a written copy to the Committee Administrator 15 minutes before the start of the meeting.

The total time allowed for questions at short notice is 15 minutes out of the total time of 30 minutes.  Any petitions, deputations and questions that have been submitted with prior formal notice will take precedence over questions submitted at short notice.  Any questions that are not considered within the time limit shall receive a written response after the meeting and be the subject of a report to the next meeting.

Two questions had been received from Mr Duel.  Mr Duel put the questions to the meeting as Members had received the full text prior to the meeting:

Question 1

I have been challenging the very high costs of marriages on approved premises for over two years. The meaning and intent of the regulations seems to be clear to all but council officials.

Councillor Begy responded to an email I sent to the cabinet and I rang him to discuss the issue. He assured me that I could trust him and promised that the council would not make any decisions on these costs until I had heard back from the Ombudsman regarding the review I had asked for. However, the cabinet later approved a 1.9% increase in the costs for the coming year, despite the ombudsman requiring that the costs be calculated and also knowing that there were serious questions to be answered about the legality of their existing costs.

I believe these very high costs to be illegal and I attach a copy of a letter I wrote to the RCC Cabinet on 9th February 2015 which contains a detailed response to the council's breakdown of the costs that I finally received more than 18 months after I had asked for them.

Q1       Is the council prepared to address each of the points I have highlighted

           in my letter?

Q2       I am not in a position to fund a judicial review of the regulation.      

          Shouldn't the council consider funding this in order to establish whether  

          or not they are acting illegally?

The Chair invited the Portfolio Holder, Mr King to respond to the question.  The response is shown below.

Answer

Mr Duell has previously complained to the Local Government Ombudsman about the level of charges for Registration Services in Rutland.  On 29 September 2014 the Ombudsman made his final decision on the complaint.  The Ombudsman found that the Council was at fault for failing to calculate an accurate cost base on which it could fairly base its fees for conducting weddings at appropriate premises.  He directed the Council to complete a review of the fees within 2 months.  The review was completed, with costs being calculated using “Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy” (CIPFA) approved methodology.  The report was sent to the Local Government Ombudsman, who felt the report was thorough and useful, and that the agreed remedy had been provided to Mr Duell’s complaint.

The report was considered by Cabinet on 10th February 2015 as part of the setting of Places Directorate Fees and Charges.  Mr Duell was sent a copy of the report in advance of the Cabinet meeting, on 15th January 2015.  Mr Duell did not attend the Cabinet meeting to hear the discussion of the paper.  Cabinet limited the increase in charges to 1.99%, in line with Council’s policy for increase in fees.  This meant that the fees remained below the level of full cost recovery.  The fees are significantly below those charged by most other Local Authorities.  The outcome of the meeting was communicated personallyto Mr Duell on the same day, who indicated he would be raising the issue again with the Local Government Ombudsman.  The Council has received no further communication from Mr Duell until the submission of these questions on 11th June 2015.  The Local Government Ombudsman has not re-opened the case.

Mr Duell asserts that the very high level of charges prohibits less well-off members of the public from using the service.  Aside from Mr Duell’s complaint, we have no other record of complaints about the levels of charges.  319 ceremonies took place in 2013-14; 348 in 2014-15; and currently 355 ceremonies are booked for this financial year (more are likely to be booked as the year progresses).  The trend would not suggest that the level of charges is deterring potential couples from marriage or civil partnership.

RESPONSE TO MR DUELL’S QUESTIONS

In Q1 Mr Duell asks the Council to respond to each of the 56 points he raises in his 7 page letter.  The Council does not believe this would be an appropriate use of Officer time, as the Local Government Ombudsman has already reviewed the report and found it to be satisfactory.

In Q2 Mr Duell asks the Council to fund a Judicial Review in to the regulation of Registration Service fees.  The Council has received professional legal advice from Peterborough Legal Services.  This advice has been clear and unequivocally states that the fees have been set legally.  The Council does not believe it is therefore appropriate to spend public money on challenging its own procedures, or the national regulations that underpin the determination of fees.

Mr Duell did not ask a supplementary question but did request that councillors considered his letter and points previously submitted.  The Chair stated that the letter would be circulated outside of this meeting and Members could decide whether to discuss at a future panel.

Question 2

I recently took a bag of rubble to the Cottesmore tip and arrived at seven minutes before the published closing time and I was surprised to see the gates being locked. When I pulled up in front of the gates, the staff were getting into their cars.

I pointed out the time, but was refused entry and was told that the council had approved the change to the regulations that no cars were allowed onto the premises from 10 minutes prior to closing. When suggesting that I could simply walk on without my car, entry was still refused. The manner of the staff was officious and hostile.

I contacted the council and was told that the measure was to prevent members of the public arriving at the last minute with 20 minutes worth of unloading to do.

1             The published access times should be just that - times between which

members of the public can gain access to take rubbish.

2          To change access in this way simply means that the opening times have been reduced and there is nothing to prevent members of the public from arriving just before the new effective closing time with 20 minutes worth of rubbish to unload. Using the above precedent, the council's solution would seem to be to reduce the access time further.

3          Few people actually leave their workplace exactly on time. This solution changes the situation from the staff losing a few minutes of their time occasionally (surely it wouldn't happen every day?) to their being paid to go home early. This is a rather silly solution to this problem and if shops, banks and other businesses can do it, why can't the council?

I have seen a better solution in other parts of the country where cones are placed across the entrance from ten minutes before closing time and a member of staff then allows access or not according to the amount of time required to unload. Use of the tip is available right up until the official closing time and if the staff are still clearing away, beyond it. The tips where I have seen this in action are far bigger tips than the tiny ones in Rutland and the manner of the staff has been friendly and accommodating. At these tips, there are a number of ways in which members of the public continue to show their appreciation.

It also means that this service, provided by the council, is a quality one and is held in high regard by the public.

Q1: Will the council review access to the tips to ensure that they are fully

       accessible within their published opening times?

Q2: If the contractor cannot provide proper access according to the normal

       opening times shouldn't a different contractor be used?

The Chair invited the Portfolio Holder, Mr Mathias to respond to the question.  The response is shown below.

Answer

The Council apologises for any inconvenience caused. It is the case that the current procedure regarding access to the Authority’s two Civic Amenity Sites (the tips) is to close the gates 5minutes prior to the stated closing time. Thus the information currently provided online is correct.

This is to prevent Customers being on the Sites significantly beyond the closing times due to the amount they have to unload.

With reference to the request to ‘walk the waste’ onto the Site this is something that the Authority will refuse due to Health & Safety concerns; Civic Amenity Sites contribute significantly to accidents that occur within the Waste Management industry and the majority of these arise from pedestrian-vehicle interaction, so it is common practice that this be avoided where possible.

However, other elements of this enquiry are a concern and need to be investigated. Thus, this has been registered as a formal complaint; reference C145-15. In particular, the alleged officious and hostile manner of the staff will be looked into, as will the reference to refusing entry 10 minutes prior to closing. No change from 5 minutes to 10 minutes has been agreed nor even discussed with the Authority.

Regarding your call for a review of these arrangements to ensure that these Sites are fully accessible within the published opening times, such a review will be commenced by w/c 29.06.2015.

Mr Duell informed the Panel that he had arrived at 5 minutes before closure and not 10 minutes before, he apologised for this as it had not been his intention to mislead.