Agenda item

To answer questions (if any) from elected members pursuant to Rule 11 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure (as amended by the Protocol and Procedure Rules for Remote Meetings.

Questions for Members must be received by 5pm two clear working days prior to the day of the meeting – the deadline for this is 5pm 5 August 2020.

The Chief Executive reported there were two questions from Councillor Brian Rush.

Question asked by Councillor Brian Rush pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Rules of Procedure as set out in the Constitution.

“Last Friday one of this Council’s amenities, became the subject of an illegal encampment, when about 25 vans and caravans were allowed to arrive on Woodville Road Playing Field, presumably parking illegally.  As the Portfolio Holder for Parks and Open Spaces, would you explain to me:

(a)  why only one enforcement Officer was on call, and;

(b)  what actions were taken to reassure residents in the area that Boston Borough Council was actively involved in resolving the ongoing issues with the travelling community?”

Response by Councillor Paul Skinner

“The Anti-Social Behaviour Team has one officer who covers Boston Borough Council area and one officer who covers East Lindsey District Council area, with a 22.5 hour a week part-time officer who supports both areas Tuesday / Wednesday and Thursday each week.

With regard to the working week ending Friday 31^st July (when the travellers arrived) the East Lindsey District Council officer was on annual leave, which meant one officer was covering both district areas. This is our standard officer coverage rota and has been since 2015.

On Friday 31 July notification was received of arrival of encampment at 1.03 p.m.   A Section 77 Notice under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 – the power of a local authority to direct unauthorised campers to leave land, was served on the illegal encampment at 3 p.m.  The Section 77 Notices were served on each vehicle, 19 on site at that time.

On Monday 3 August a summons to court for orders of removal of persons and their vehicles unlawfully on land, was served on each vehicle and occupant under Section 78 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

On Monday 3 August a court date was granted for Thursday 6 August to hear the case and obtain the order for the direction and removal of the unauthorised encampment.  The encampment then moved off the site during the evening of Thursday 6 August.

The Council’s cleansing team undertook a deep clean of the site during the night and it was open again by 8 a.m. on the morning of Friday 7 August.

Officers of the Customer Services and ASB Teams updated all callers who contacted the Council with the steps that had been taken, and would be taken once we had been court to obtain the eviction and removal order. Updates were also posted via the Council’s social media platforms.”

Supplemental question asked by Councillor Rush pursuant to paragraph 11.6 of the Rules of Procedure as set out in the Constitution:-

“No allowances were made for the distress caused by this incursion and the damage caused to equipment.  The pirate ship in the play area cost a lot of money had was used as a toilet. You need to talk to officers to make the site safe for the public.  It’s not good enough, we need to see better results in the future.”

Response by Councillor Skinner

“I share your distress, and will obviously push for legislation to change.  It is abhorrent that so much damage can be caused without fear of recourse.  Environmental solutions will be considered to make the site secure, fences may not be the solution. A worked up scheme will be presented to the Boston Town Area Committee.”

Question asked by Councillor Brian Rush pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Rules of Procedure as set out in the Constitution.

“Councillor Skinner you have been a supporting advocate of this Alliance, and so one would expect you to have been the main cheerleader for Boston, its people and the staff of this Council.

So are you yet in a position to tell us, who amongst Boston’s loyal staff, are destined to lose their jobs?”

Response by Councillor Paul Skinner

“I thank Councillor Rush for notice of his question.  Full Council is not an appropriate forum to discuss staffing arrangements, as this falls under the responsibility of the Chief Executive as Head of Paid Service.”

Supplemental question asked by Councillor Brian Rush pursuant to paragraph 11.6 of the Rules of Procedure as set out in the Constitution:-

“People are in limbo, not knowing what is happening.  It’s time you gave employees confidence in where the Council is going, confidence is key.  Workers will start to look for other jobs, you need to take care to keep our best officers.”

Response by Councillor Paul Skinner

“I concur we have fantastic staff. I held five briefing sessions with staff on the Strategic Alliance. We have an excellent Chief Executive and responsibility for staffing rests with him.”