Agenda item

The public open forum will commence at 1.00 p.m. and the following formal business of the Council will commence at 1.30 p.m. or whenever the public open forum ends, if earlier.

Question 1

From: Bob Sandall, Stamford

To: Councillor Kelham Cooke, the Deputy Leader of the Council

“For the last 12 years, Stamford Town Council has been run by the Stamford Independent Group.

After years of lobbying SKDC, 9 years ago they agreed to give us our Recreation Ground back. In that time we have improved the Recreation Ground beyond recognition. We have put an extension on the shack, where we now have a youth club and it is also used by the mental health group. We have re-designed the tots play area and furnished it with new play equipment. We have a nature trail, skate park, new toilets, 5 aside football pitch and put electric into the band stand for groups to use for shows. The list goes on.

We have done this by keeping the precept for the last 8 of the 9 years for Stamford rate payers at zero and last year there was a small decrease in the precept. In other words in the 9 years we have had it there have been no increase to the Stamford rate payers.

We have proved we can run our parks at no extra cost to the Stamford rate payer.

My question is – Now we are at the start of the new council at SKDC, will the leader and the cabinet re-consider their decision and give us our sports fields back – Uffington Road and Empingham Road.

You have had talks with us over the last 2 years, but nothing came from them.

As Vice Chairman of the Finance Committee, the Chairman and I would like to restart talks in the hope of getting our sports fields back.”

The Deputy Leader thanked Mr. Sandall for his question and stated that prior to the election he had met with Councillor Dawson and the clerk to Stamford Town Council to discuss the matter. He added that officers had already begun to look at how this could be facilitated. The Deputy Leader concluded by saying that he would arrange for a meeting to be set up to explore the proposal further and discuss the terms of any proposed transfer.

Comment

Rob Shorrock from Grantham had given notice that he wished to make a statement on agenda item 8a, which was the notice of motion submitted by Councillor Dilks on funding for Lincolnshire Police.

During his statement Mr. Shorrock referred to the original motion on police funding, which was proposed by Councillor Dilks at the Council meeting on 23 May 2019. The motion asked the Council to show its support for Lincolnshire Police, the lobbying of local MPs and it raised concerns about increases in the crime rate across the district. An announcement was made at the meeting by the Council’s representative on the Lincolnshire Police and Crime Panel, which indicated that, following a meeting between the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Home Secretary, the force would receive £10m in additional funding, which Mr Shorrock suggested as the reason Council rejected the motion.

Following the Council meeting on 23 May 2019, it had become clear that the £10m increase in funding had been over several years, from a combination of increasing the allocation of reserves, increasing the precept and a one-off grant from the Home Office. Reference was made to a question that had been submitted at the Council meeting on 27 June 2019, which sought to clarify the position and identified that there had been a miscommunication that led to the wrong information being shared. Since that time the matter had been referred to within the Grantham Journal. Reference was made to the content and tone of the published items, with Members’ attention being drawn to the explanation given by the Council’s representative on the Police and Crime Panel. Mr. Shorrock said he felt that the Council needed to uphold the principles of objectivity and accountability by holding its representative on the Police and Crime Panel to account; he also hoped that Council would take advantage of its opportunity to demonstrate its support for Lincolnshire Police when it considered the motion later in the meeting.

Question 2

From: Rob Shorrock, Grantham

To: Councillor Adam Stokes, the Cabinet Member for Finance

“As the portfolio holder responsible for SKDC Finances can you provide a full response to the following:

I note InvestSK has recently revised its articles of association and at its AGM in June has proposed shifting from a Memorandum of Understanding to a full service contract with SKDC, but has not yet filed accounts with Companies House.  

In April, the SKDC record of payments over £500 includes a single payment of £413,881.72 to InvestSK. As InvestSK is a company wholly owned by SKDC which carries out many functions which used to be delivered directly by the local authority, is it not necessary for the company to be transparent and accountable for the use of public finances and for InvestSK to publish its own records of expenditure over £500, as is required of SKDC, and that any service contract agreed between SKDC and InvestSK is properly published, open to scrutiny and ultimately approved by full council?”

In responding to the question, the Cabinet Member for Finance stated that the financial year for InvestSK was 31 March. In accordance with statutory deadlines the company was required to file its audited accounts within 9 months of the end of the financial year, meaning those accounts would need to be published by 31 December 2019. He added that there was no requirement for companies that were wholly owned by local authorities to publish their payment information. The Cabinet Member also referred to the formation of the Companies Committee which would be responsible for scrutinising the activity of all the Council’s companies, including InvestSK.

As part of his supplementary question Mr. Shorrock referred to a proviso within the Transparency Code that placed a requirement that the transparency of any private contractor or private partner should be at the same level as the local authority. He added that it was up to the Council to determine whether the arrangements in the Transparency Code would apply to any private sector providers. Mr. Shorrock asked whether those arrangements would be put in place and whether the Cabinet Member was aware of the New Local Government Network publication which set out good practice in this area. The Cabinet Member for Finance reiterated that scrutiny and transparency work would be undertaken by the Companies Committee and this would include InvestSK.