Live Coverage: Full Council Meeting 16th June 2010 (update 10)

Keeping you updated, as it happens

VB are reporting live from the full council meeting at County Hall. Full agenda details (PDF)

Please refresh / reload your browser to see the latest updates. We will endeavour to report presentations and discussions as accurately as possible. Text surrounded by () signifies VB’s comments.

[18:02] Prayers over. Apologies for absence.

Cllr Taylor – personal and prejudicial interest in Westminster House debate

Public questions
10 on Northwood House alone. A number of the questioners missing.

Mrs Wardlock (?) As IWC Sole trust beneficiary. Why has council not appointed a trustee?

[18:07] Update 1
Ms Gladhill: Why IWC is planning to remove paintings from Northwood House to put into storage?

(Next): Why has this been dealt with under delegated powers, when discussions have been under way already?

(Next): How can it be a good idea for IWC to pull away so quickly (my approximation)?

Sue Weaver: IWC withdrawing facilities – how do councillors feel?

(Next): Can’t find financial details of how the IWC has run Trust.

(Next): IWC Knows that NH has been on at risk register since 1999

[18:13] Update 2
Cllr Pugh responds: A composite answer. Written replies to questioners. NH Trust is a registered trust. It’s up to them to keen it in order, not IWC Since 2002

(Incorrect called from gallery)

We haven’t said we’d stop using the NH facilities – quite the opposite. Ceasing taking booking – toilet not in good order, bar roof down.

(Incorrect from gallery again)

Registry office will stop. The council is offering funding for a study – rest (80%) English Heritage.

IWC insurers refuses to insure it past 30 June this year. Trust has 7 appointees. IWC have 1 seat. Paintings were gifted to the borough originally. Now, in turn, belong to IWC. Will be stored in the correct conditions.

[18:17] Update 3
Accounts – approved by trust since 2002. Further info will be given by council ‘as soon as we can’. Aware it’s been on ‘at risk’ register.

The condition of the building is down to the Trustees, not the council.

(Call of whitewash from gallery)
Q: David Miller: Displaced pupils at schools. An unanswered question since March

Cllr Pugh: 2011-12 arrangements in statutory notices

Mr Owen Q: How did social services reach these figure? How are people to pay for day care as budgets being cut?

Cllr Mazillius: Council has been in discussion for some time. There’s 574 people being cared for at cost of over £11m. Council still want to support people. IWC had to review all costs, inc those with learning difficulties. One to one is being withdrawn – Care band 3 (what ever that is) is being put in it’s place

Residential providers should be paying for transport to the services. If people are assessed to be over Care band 3, one to one will continue to be offered.

“We are working hard to protect the most vulnerable in our society in this difficult financial climate”

–end of public questions

[18:33] Update 4
(Just popped out to speak to Northwood House people who were leaving)

Geoff Lumley on his feet. Carbon Emissions are in Combined conservative/liberal government. I’ve brought 1010 to this council three times – voted against by Island Tory councillors each time

Suggesting again that 1010 is reconsidered. If you do, you will save £415,000 pounds. This is a figure provided by council officers.

That money would keep open Westminster House, with some left over for other threatened places. Hope that all people on all sides will vote for it.

(It’s a resolution)

Seconder (Cllr Fuller) – Welcome new political forces supporting this.

Cllr Giles: Labour lost at the last elections. This administration is keen to save carbon emissions, but over a planned period. I’ve checked with officers who say they can’t see how this money Cllr Lumley speaks of will be saved. 2009-2010 9% reduction in building and lighting savings. Schools are 45-50% of carbon emissions. IWC doesn’t have complete control over them.

Dinosaur Isle has been test area for Carbon savings, by switching to power that can run at 220v not just 240v. Saves £10k over the year

(Time up)

Cllr Wyatt-Millington: This is two motions in one. I don’t want to see targets as they can’t be measure. Can’t support as it’s mixed.

Cllr Barry: There is no coalition in this chamber.

[18:45] Update 5
Cllr Bacon: Whatever the saving, why would you not sign up for this? If there’s a chance to save something, how could you object?

Cllr Hollis: (says he’s insulated his house with real wool, not rockwool. It takes 8% of the energy to create)

Cllr Lumley: (summary): Cllr Giles says he cannot save any more. Only asking for a commitment to 10% per year. This is all about savings – what’s wrong with savings?

I hope you support this – but I know you won’t

Vote:
6 for
18 against
2 abstentions
(There’s not many people in here tonight)

(Chair speaking now)

“Point scoring, tit-for-tat complaints are disappointing”

“Have to wait for outcomes to fully judge”

A lot of thought goes in the decisions we made. New government have spoke about abolishing the board. Would it be replaced by a code of conduct? We don’t know.

(Mr Sanford(?) Might have been his name)

Leader being asked to propose it being accepted. Cllr Scoccia seconds.

Vote:
27 for
1 abstention

[18:59] Update 6
Item 8. New petition scheme

Petitions currently say they must be accepted at over 500 voters. Proposal to 2,500 have to be debated in the chamber or over scrutiny board. E-petition being prepared

Employment rule change – need flexibility for people being employed at head of service or above level

(Terms of reference)

(Change)

Less that 2,500 will be dealt with Cabinet members.

Cllr Bacon: Encouraged by anything adding to democracy. How many petitions of that size have been received in the last five years?

Cllr Pugh: None in my experience. Pixey Hill might have been close (No, say other councillors)

Vote:
28 for
1 against

[19:09] Update 7
Item 9: Cllr Barry: When did council decide to censor councillors reports to council Cllr Pugh?

Cllr Pugh: I wouldn’t use the same term. None of them should contain political statements, as it’s council time/cost

Cllr Barry: I cannot find the political nature of statements in the standing orders.

(Constitution not standing orders)

Cllr Pugh: It might not be explicitly be in Constituion, but other laws don’t allow political statement.

Cllr Lumley: Can you assure me that current year 5+6 get the full eduction that they should be delivered.

Cllr Pugh: There might be some reduced staffing. We are determined that the transition years, have full access to the curriculum.

Cllr Howe: I asked a written question at scrutiny and it took six weeks to get an answer. Can we be assured that councillors will get answers in a short order?

[19:20] Update 8
Cllr Fuller: Are School travel plans being considered in the future?

Cllr Pugh: Schools have a right to expand. Don’t think the travel plan has to be taken into account when expanding.

Cllr Brown section:

Cllr Wyatt-Millington: Concerns about some planning decisions made under delegated decisions

Cllr Brown: only complex planning applications should come to committee. Justification Report is attached to every decision made, which can be requested.

Cllr Richards: Is planning sufficiently funded?

Cllr Brown: Some ‘less than efficient’ practices have been changed.

Probably won’t be able to afford to give it extra as money is short (heavily summarised)

Cllr Fuller: When was the decision made to withdraw from Northwood House? Where are the notes of that meeting?

Cllr Pugh: April, a management decision was made for registrar movement – therefore there are no minutes.

Cllr Richards: Can you assure me, that you will not leave any council property behind – search the ceilings and cellars

Cllr Pugh: I assure you we will “strip it bare”

Cllr Bacon: ( Cllr Welsford’s Q): women’s refuge is closing. Why is this not a vital service?

Cllr Mazillius: Domestic abuse is complex. Council and partners are full supportive, but this will be in the view of financial short comings. Needs to show value for money. 6 units there. Current provider has been offered contact until March 2011. 10% reduction to £54k – we believe this is sufficient. If the current provider doesn’t want to continue, we will find another provider.

Will be meeting the Chief Exec of the refuge.

Cllr Lumley: Written response to all members please

(Agreed)

Cllr Howe: I’ve joined the adoption panel and had no training.

Cllr Cousins: It’s been booked for 30 June.

[19:44] Update 9
Cllr Bacon for Cllr Welsford: Ryde inshore + Sandown inshore are concerned about RNLI taking over lifeguard service. What stage have been reached?

Cllr Giles: Costs us £100k at the mo. It’s discretionary, but we do it anyway. We are considering if there’s a cheaper way of doing it.

Informal discussions have taken place with officers. No decision has been made. Competitive tendering prob needed.

Cllr Wyatt-Millington: Niton meeting about traffic lights was packed. No voted for it.

Cllr Giles: Views will be taken into account. Decision in September.

Cllr Ward: RNLI again. The fear isn’t that RNLI get the contract, but that RNLI are so good at fund raising that funding for the independent ones will not be able to continue.

Cllr Giles: Will bear the concerns in mind + consult with inshore rescue services before making decisions.

[19:55] Update 10
Cllr Mazillius: Would like to pass on congratulations to the Isle of Wight Festival organisers.

Cllr Richards: Military Road. When will public consultation start?

Cllr Giles: Meeting IWALC tomorrow. Expert decision in Sept

Cllr Dyer: Review on parking charges

Cllr Giles: Under consideration. Prob at mid-year review in Sept.

Cllr Barry: Is it OK to dispose of Dog muck in ‘normal bins’ on the Island?

Cllr Abrahams: Not 100% sure, but I assume it’s OK? Will get a written response for you.

END OF MEETING

Wightfibre sponsors the Isle of Wight News by OnTheWight

Wednesday, 16th June, 2010 6:06pm

By

ShortURL: http://wig.ht/26Gl

Filed under: Island-wide, Isle of Wight Council, Isle of Wight News, Live coverage

Print Friendly

.



8 Comments

  1. Amanda's comment is rated +3 Vote +1 Vote -1

    16.Jun.2010 6:46pm

    Well said Cllr Bacon! Can’t believe there is any argument over the cost savings of commiting to 10:10. Shame on your tories, especially Cllr Barry – what a stupid comment.

    Reply
    • watchdog's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

      16.Jun.2010 7:20pm

      Well, Cllr Barry is not celebrated for his wisdom and foresight. Remember he was the one who signed off under delegated powers the wheeze by ex-Property Manager Tony Flower to pass over the freehold of a good chunk of Ventnor Eastern Esplanade to Cheetah Marine for a pound after payment of 5 years rent.

      Reply
    • Jonathan Bacon's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

      17.Jun.2010 2:06pm

      Thank you for that Amanda. The £415,000 figure was a costed saving provided to us by officers as part of the alternative budget in February. I did also add that at no point has anyone asserted that there was any potential for a loss to be made by signing up to 1010.
      Unfortunately the real reason there was block conservative opposition to the motion was that it was proposed by Geoff Lumley!

      Reply
  2. Anon's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

    22.Jul.2010 10:06am

    And Also may i ask what was the stupid comment made by Cllr Reg Barry?

    Cllr Barry: Is it OK to dispose of Dog muck in ‘normal bins’ on the Island?

    If it is legal to put dog waste in ordinary litter bins regardless of the health hazard, why do town and parish council’s across the island pay thousands of pounds to provide and empty Dog litter bins

    Reply

Add comment

Login to your account.
If you do not have an account, reserve your own name and receive exclusive special offers - just sign up for an On The Wight account

.