To consider any questions which may have been received from Elected Members and which are asked pursuant to Standing Order No. 11.
(a) Councillor Lodge
‘An investment in Youth Services is needed more than ever, as such will the Cabinet Member responsible rethink the investment in the proposed town centre ‘Youth Zone’ and instead use the monies to invest in youth services in communities and the already existing groups that can deliver on these?’
(b) Councillor Wilson
‘As part of the accelerated investment proposals CAB.16.10.2019/7 the cabinet agreed a number of themed proposals one of which was an initiative to have a positive environmental impact and to accelerate our zero carbon objectives.
£40,000 was allocated to design and commence a tree planting program across the borough. Could I ask in light of recent Council expenditure on the pandemic. How much of this allocation is still remaining and how many trees have been planted?’
(c) Councillor Birkinshaw
‘At the Planning Regulatory Board held on September 1st., the proposed development regarding the Higham roundabout was raised by the two Dodworth members of the board.
Various questions and comments have been raised many times by Phil
Birkinshaw at numerous council meetings in an
effort to campaign for a link road to alleviate heavy
commercial
traffic using Higham Common Road since the opening of the
Dodworth by-pass
Councillors Birkinshaw an Wright would like to ask once again on
behalf of our Higham residents, what assurance can be provided that
this link road will be fully constructed before any further
development takes place?’
(d) Councillor Fielding
‘Earlier this month, Sheffield City Region announced that as part of their Roads Implementation Plan, a new junction 37a is being considered for the M1 to be delivered as early as the late 2020’s.
This news has understandably generated a good deal of press coverage and questions from residents about this major development. Can the Cabinet member please advise on the following:
· What has been the involvement of Barnsley Council in this proposal and when did the Council become aware that this new junction was being considered.
· What would the purpose of such a new junction be and what traffic problems would it be designed to alleviate?
· Where is the likely location for such a new junction?
Does the Council support the proposal for this new junction from the M1?’
(e) Councillor Lodge
‘Could the Cabinet Member responsible outline the cost of the 2020-21 ‘Street Blitz’ Programme?’
(f) Councillor Greenhough
‘None of the Covid 19 impact assessments we are using at the moment include a No Deal Brexit. With this looking increasingly likely, isn’t this something that should be included in the council's economic forecasts?’
(g) Councillor Lodge
‘Given the likely increase in poverty in the Borough, due to Covid-19, would the Council look at creating a plan to tackle this before the proposed date of March 2021?’
(h) Councillor Kitching
‘On 23rd August a resident contacted me regarding the situation in the town centre involving anti-social behaviour, violence and drug use. I recognise the progress made in establishing a town centre team with partnership working with the police and the council to address these issues. However, it is worrying that despite this there are still problems and some residents are worried about their safety in the town centre. One of the key success factors in the town centre redevelopment is it being a family friendly environment were people feel safe. What additional steps are the council taking to create this environment?’
(i) Councillor Greenhough
‘On 3rd September elected members received a briefing note from Public Health regarding Covid-19 and the commencement of proactive visits to and spot checks in licenced premises. In the briefing note it was stated that: “There have been instances of increased rates locally, some of these have been centred around licensed venues.”
The hospitality sector reopened on 4th July. Please provide details on the following:
· How and when was advice issued by the council to the hospitality sector before re-opening?
· What work has been carried out by the council with the hospitality sector since reopening, how often is the advice issued updated?
· What, if any, enforcement action has been taken to date?’
(j) Councillor Kitching
‘What has happened to all the devices handed in by members and officers in the recent IT device refresh? Have these been cleaned and recycled?’
Minutes:
The Executive Director Core Services Chief Executive reported that he had received a number of questions from Elected Members in accordance with Standing Order No. 11.
Note: a maximum of 30 minutes was allocated for this item in accordance with Standing Order No 11(2)(d).
(a) Councillor Lodge
‘An investment in Youth Services is needed more than ever, as such will the Cabinet Member responsible rethink the investment in the proposed town centre ‘Youth Zone’ and instead use the monies to invest in youth services in communities and the already existing groups that can deliver on these?’
Councillor Bruff, Cabinet Member for Children’s Services responded by thanking Councillor Lodge for his question.
The Youth Zone presented a unique opportunity to generate and lever in investment (both capital and revenue) for the benefit of all young people, right across the borough.
It would provide a building specifically for young people and would diversify the existing town centre offer, further adding vibrancy to the momentum generated by The Glass Works and Library @The Lightbox, encouraging more people to visit the town, strengthening the visitor economy.
The Youth Zone would complement existing youth services and local groups; the Early Help and Targeted Support Services for Young People, delivered by the Council’s Targeted Youth Support Team.
The Youth Zone was a facility totally dedicated to young people both in terms of access, time available and space which was ‘owned’ by young people, as opposed to a service or space which was accessed as part of a wider offer to the public more broadly.
Being located in the Barnsley Town Centre it would be accessible to all Young People across the Borough. Youth Zones in the format developed by OnSide were built in partnership with a range of agencies including the voluntary and community sector. Existing voluntary and community groups would be key stakeholders in the development and would benefit from access to the Youth Zone and the promotion of services delivered by the Voluntary and Community Sector.
Youth Zones had a track record of impacting positively on anti-social behaviour in communities and presented work and volunteering opportunities. It was also a good opportunity for Barnsley to demonstrate how much it valued young people more broadly, as well as specifically in terms of engaging positively in the town centre developments as part of the wider economic development of the town.
This was going to be an absolutely fantastic resource for all of the young people of the borough. There were some wonderful voluntary organisations and volunteers in youth work but unfortunately they could not provide the sort of facilities that this proposal would offer. The Authority would, however, work together with those people and organisations and would be part of the full overall picture of what was being made available for young people.
Councillor Lodge stated that it was a great disappointment that the Cabinet Member wouldn’t rethink this decision. £3.4m was a large investment in a new building, considering the Council was currently undertaking plans to knock down a former youth service building in Worsborough. In the last few days, he had spoken to representatives of the third sector and youth services across the Borough and they too have significant concerns.
They had outlined their concerns, including:
· The Youth Zone would have to be locality funded within three years, creating a David V Goliath situation in youth service funding in the Borough.
· Limited to no consultation with community youth service providers across our communities.
He also had his own concerns as has happened in Wolverhampton where the Council was topping up the funds by 200k each year after founding patrons dropped out.
At this point in the proceedings, the Mayor reminded Councillor Lodge to refrain from making comments and to restrict himself to asking a supplementary question.
Councillor Lodge then asked, as a supplementary question, if the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services would commit to sitting down with him and youth service providers across the Borough to find a more positive way forward?’’
Councillor Bruff stated that the consultation process was not yet complete, and she was more than happy to sit down with anyone who wanted to discuss the proposals with her. If Councillor Lodge would contact her with proposed dates a meeting would be arranged.
(b) Councillor Wilson
‘As part of the accelerated investment proposals CAB.16.10.2019/7 the cabinet agreed a number of themed proposals one of which was an initiative to have a positive environmental impact and to accelerate our zero carbon objectives.
£40,000 was allocated to design and commence a tree planting program across the borough. Could I ask in light of recent Council expenditure on the pandemic. How much of this allocation is still remaining and how many trees have been planted?’
Councillor Lamb, Cabinet Spokesperson for Place (Environment and Transportation) thanked Councillor Wilson for his question.
As many people were aware, accelerated investment proposals had been suspended and any allocated monies were withdrawn due to the covid crisis, therefore no monies had been spent. He was pleased to inform Council that a tree planting project had been approved by Cabinet which, subject to any call in procedures, would see £385,000 being set aside for the planting of 10,000 trees. The project also aimed to lever in matched funding from other sources and would involve communities, schools and a range of other partner organisations. This was a good news story for the borough.
Councillor Wilson thanked Councillor Lamb for his response and he asked as a supplementary question whether two tree planting projects in which he was involved, one at Thurgoland Primary School and the other at High Hoyland would be looked at favourably.
Councillor Lamb in response stated that his Service would be looking for every opportunity to enhance the canopy cover within Barnsley (which already stood at 16%), but these had to be the right trees in the right location so subject to that he would be delighted to work with Councillor Wilson and indeed the schools in helping to achieve those tree planting projects.
(c) Councillor Birkinshaw
‘At the Planning Regulatory Board held on September 1st., the proposed development regarding the Higham roundabout was raised by the two Dodworth members of the board.
Various questions and comments have been raised many times by Phil
Birkinshaw at numerous council meetings in an
effort to campaign for a link road to alleviate heavy
commercial
traffic using Higham Common Road since the opening of the Dodworth
by-pass
Councillors Birkinshaw an Wright would like to ask once again on
behalf of our Higham residents, what (assurance?) can be provided
that this link road will be fully constructed before any further
development takes place?’
Councillor Lamb, Cabinet Spokesperson for Place (Environment and Transportation) thanked Councillors Birkinshaw and Wright for the question.
The Barnsley West Masterplan Framework that had been adopted for site MU1 stated that to make best use of Sheffield City Region Infrastructure Fund (SCRIF) investment and enhance early connectivity and local community benefits, the link road should be delivered as early as possible in the development of the Masterplan.
A planning application was currently under consideration for a plot towards the Redbrook end of the site for 140 dwellings. This was on part of the site outside the control of the Barnsley West Consortium. Amongst other things, officers and the Planning & Regulatory Board would have to assess whether that parcel should be allowed to come forward in a piecemeal fashion in advance of the link road.
In the meantime, officers had asked the consortium to explore how they could bring forward the link road as part of their proposed first phase of development and it was understand the consortium were in dialogue with Homes England to explore options.
Councillor Birkinshaw stated that in view of the fact that it was not guaranteed that the link road would be fully constructed before heavy construction traffic came on site, and given that there were already long standing major problems on Higham Common Road, he asked, as a supplementary question what could be put in place to ensure that there was no further heavy construction vehicles and equipment coming down this dangerous road and what mitigations could be put in place in order to alleviate further problems occurring.
Councillor Lamb stated that he fully appreciated Councillor Birkinshaw’s concerns. As indicated, his clear preference would be for the link road to be constructed and serviceable in advance of any development. If, however, that really wasn’t possible all alternative options would be explored in order to try and ameliorate or indeed remove any additional burden upon Higham Common Road.
(d) Councillor Fielding
‘Earlier this month, Sheffield City Region announced that as part of their Roads Implementation Plan, a new junction 37a is being considered for the M1 to be delivered as early as the late 2020’s.
This news has understandably generated a good deal of press coverage and questions from residents about this major development. Can the Cabinet member please advise on the following:
· What has been the involvement of Barnsley Council in this proposal and when did the Council become aware that this new junction was being considered.
· What would the purpose of such a new junction be and what traffic problems would it be designed to alleviate?
· Where is the likely location for such a new junction?
· Does the Council support the proposal for this new junction from the M1?’
Councillor Lamb, Cabinet Spokesperson for Place (Environment and Transportation) thanked Councillor Fielding for his question.
Reference to an M1 Junction 37a emerged in February 2019 as part of Transport for the North’s Southern Pennines Strategic Development Corridor commission. The Southern Pennines had been identified as one of seven corridors that aimed to better connect the economic centres and natural assets of the North. Prior to this, the Council had identified that if there were to be a Trans Pennine tunnel or substantial upgrades to the Woodhead route that would result in substantial traffic increases at Junctions 36 and 37, they would not have the capacity to cope with this increased demand and could not be further adapted to accommodate such demand. The Council had also highlighted existing congestion on the M1 as a further constraint and that this would need to be considered as part of any proposal to effectively divert traffic off the M62 and onto an upgraded Woodhead route.
The current understanding was that work undertaken by Transport for the North had been purely conceptual and the Council had not been presented with a precise location of a junction or any associated road alignments/corridors. In the absence of this, it was not known what its proposed purpose would be and were unable to say whether or not such a proposal would be supported.
Councillor Fielding asked, as a supplementary question, that in the light of this proposal, which he acknowledged was still at an early stage, if the Council would consider reviewing the land allocations in this area as set out in the Local Plan given that any new motorway junction would have a major impact on the development potential of land and would significantly change the traffic demands on the local highway network. He also asked if the Council would also ensure that all transport assessments which supported planning applications for developments in this area, which already attempted to assess traffic flow up to the year 2033, would include an assessment of the impact of any new motorway junction so that the Planning Regulatory Board could make fully informed decisions about these developments.
Councillor Lamb responded by stating that he felt that what Councillor Fielding was requesting was somewhat unrealistic given that these proposals were purely conceptual. It would probably be more than 10 years before any development started if at all. Considering that the Local Plan had a 20-year lifespan it would mean that the Council would be hamstrung if it accepted Councillor Fielding’s request and more than 50% of the lifetime of the Local Plan would have elapsed before anything happened on the ground but, of course, nothing might occur as the proposal was purely conceptual. To hold up all development on the west side of the borough would in his opinion be inappropriate.
(e) Councillor Lodge
‘Could the Cabinet Member responsible outline the cost of the 2020-21 ‘Street Blitz’ Programme?’
Councillor Lamb, Cabinet Spokesperson for Place (Environment and Transportation) stated that the weeds and graffiti programme had been suspended in Quarter 1 to allow staff to be redeployed to other priority services due to Covid 19 and an example of this was the Refuse Collection Service.
The programme had now recommenced and would continue until up until March 2021. The spend to date was £70,000 with a further £60,000 planned for the remainder of the financial year.
Councillor Lodge asked, as a supplementary question, whether the Cabinet Spokesperson would be willing to meet him and other members to look at the standard of work that had been undertaken in the Worsbrough Ward.
Councillor Lamb stated that he would be more than willing to attend a meeting together with the appropriate Head of Service. If Councillor Lodge was able to provide some dates when he might be available a meeting would be arranged.
(f) Councillor Greenhough
‘None of the Covid 19 impact assessments we are using at the moment include a No Deal Brexit. With this looking increasingly likely, isn’t this something that should be included in the council's economic forecasts?’
Councillor Cheetham, Cabinet Spokesperson for Place (Regeneration and Culture) thanked Councillor Greenhough for his question.
The current COVID Economic Impact Assessment was currently being refreshed and the latest model would fully reflect the potential impacts of a No Deal Brexit. The Barnsley COVID Economic Recovery plan also recognised the potential impact that a No Deal Brexit may have on the local economy. Through the Economic Recovery Group, the Council was working in partnership with Barnsley & Rotherham Chamber to deliver a specific package of Brexit support for Barnsley businesses. The Council would continue to monitor the impacts closely and would continue to develop and delivery economic support in line with local need.
Councillor Greenhough stated that Goldman Sachs had released a report a few days ago stating that the economic impact from a No Deal Brexit would be 2-3 times that of Covid-19 and in the light of this he asked, as a supplementary question, whether or not the Council Leader would consider an emergency budget should the No Deal scenario occur.
Councillor Cheetham stated that the impact assessments that had been undertaken in relation to Covid and Brexit with local businesses had mostly been around addressing plans to be put in place for specific difficulties for the businesses concerned in the light of those events. He understood that work was currently being undertaken in relation to a variety of scenarios that could occur in the light of Covid and a No Deal Brexit. He acknowledged that Goldman Sachs had released a report this week but the difficulty in planning for a No Deal Brexit was the uncertainty involved. Whilst there was a plethora of advice on Covid, there was very little on No Deal Brexit and it was, therefore, very difficult for businesses and local authorities to plan accordingly. The Council would, of course, take on any and all views but it was probably too early to suggest an emergency budget at this stage without knowing the full extent of what the Council might face.
(g) Councillor Lodge
‘Given the likely increase in poverty in the Borough, due to Covid-19, would the Council look at creating a plan to tackle this before the proposed date of March 2021?’
Councillor Platts, Cabinet Spokesperson for Adults and Communities thanked Councillor Lodge for his question.
The aim was to complete the Poverty needs assessment by December 2020 and a Plan would be developed from this. This does not mean, of course, that nothing was happening to seek to address the factors relating to poverty for example the review of the Apprenticeship Strategy, the development of the 2030 Plan, the continued development of the Barnsley Food Partnership and many local actions through the Area Councils and Ward Alliances. Recent example of that was something that had been discussed at length today with the Healthy Holidays Programme and activities that had taken place across the Borough during the six week holidays which had resulted in some really good outcomes. Good work was already taking place and plans would be in place by December 2020.
Councillor Lodge thanked Councillor Platts for her response. One of the lessons learned from the Health Holidays Programme was that improvements could have been made by working with other Directorates and he asked, as a supplementary question, fi the Council could look at creating closer working partnerships between those Directorates in order to target poverty more effectively at a local level through Ward Alliances and Area Councils.
Councillor Platts commented that an analysis of the outcome of the activities revealed that a lot of activities had been arranged via Ward Alliances and through Area Councils. Funding had been provided via the British Food Bank and this had been allocated to Area Council’s which then arranged activities. Ward Alliances had, of course, arranged events as well and many activities had been arranged by different organisations. The aim was, therefore, to co-ordinate all the activities more cohesively. Councillor Platts also placed on record her thanks to all involved and who had given their time as this had enabled resources to me maximised to the benefit of the community.
(h) Councillor Kitching
‘On 23rd August a resident contacted me regarding the situation in the town centre involving anti-social behaviour, violence and drug use. I recognise the progress made in establishing a town centre team with partnership working with the police and the council to address these issues. However, it is worrying that despite this there are still problems and some residents are worried about their safety in the town centre. One of the key success factors in the town centre redevelopment is it being a family friendly environment were people feel safe. What additional steps are the council taking to create this environment?’
Councillor Platts, Cabinet Spokesperson for Adults and Communities thanked Councillor Kitching for her question.
She stated that safety and security were recognised as being fundamentally important if the Council’s ambitions for the town centre were to be realised. Whilst visitors being the victim of violence or any crime in the town centre remained thankfully rare it was also recognised that people’s perceptions of safety could be affected by the behaviour of a small minority of individuals whom sometimes congregated in the town centre.
The Council had been instrumental in driving through significant interventions to try and address these issues though. These included
- Significant investment in Police Officers and Council Wardens to provide a dedicated uniformed presence in the town centre typically operating during the days and in the early evening when footfall was at its greatest.
- The alignment of these resources to other uniformed services including Parking Enforcement, Litter Enforcement, the Markets Team and collocation into the Glassworks within the heart of the town centre
- The complete renewal and upgrading of CCTV (again at significant investment by the Council thereby providing the best achievable surveillance in the town centre)
- Regular and highly visible proactive operations which included other services to support the mainstream team now referred to.
The impact of the collaborative arrangements and the proactive operations described had been well received however it was acknowledged that there remained concern about the behaviours of some people and that one bad experience for any visitor was one too many.
The Council was, therefore, continuing to explore other initiatives and approaches to try and further tackle these concerns. These included investments to improve physical security measures in the town centre and the potential addition of extra police officers with wardens to the Town Centre Team adding both capacity and scope to maximise the use of powers.
There were no quick off the shelf solutions to what were widespread social problems apparent in towns and cities across the country nevertheless the Council should be rightly proud of its role in trying to forge a way forward backed by tangible investment and resources into making the town centre a safe and enjoyable location for all.
Councillor Kitching thanked Councillor Platts for her response. Councillor Platts had mentioned further investment in the future and Councillor Kitching therefore asked, as a supplementary question, whether there was a timeline for when the family friendly environment would be in place within the town centre.
Councillor Platts stated that work was currently ongoing with the recruitment of Town Centre Wardens who had only recently been appointed. This had been particularly difficult given the current environment. The Police were also recruiting new officers with a deadline of 31st December, 2020 so it was hoped that new Police Officers would be in post in the early New Year. The Police and the Safer Neighbourhood Team and other partners had just undertaken a 3 day operation in the town centre which had resulted in some important outcomes which it was hoped would assist in alleviating problems there.
(i) Councillor Greenhough
‘On 3rd September elected members received a briefing note from Public Health regarding Covid-19 and the commencement of proactive visits to and spot checks in licenced premises. In the briefing note it was stated that: “There have been instances of increased rates locally, some of these have been centred around licensed venues.”
The hospitality sector reopened on 4th July. Please provide details on the following:
· How and when was advice issued by the council to the hospitality sector before re-opening?
· What work has been carried out by the council with the hospitality sector since reopening, how often is the advice issued updated?
· What, if any, enforcement action has been taken to date?’
At this point in the proceedings the Mayor stated that the time allowed for Questions by Councillors had expired. In view of this a written response would be provided for the outstanding two questions.
Suspension of Standing Orders
A motion was Moved by Councillor Kitching – Seconded by Councillor Greenhough
‘That Standing Order No 11 be suspended insofar as it related to the time limit of 30 minutes allowed for Councillors questions in view of there being only one question and a response to a further question remaining’.
RESOLVED that Standing Order No 11 be suspended at this meeting insofar as it relates to the time limit imposed for the deliberation of Questions by Elected Members.
Councillor Andrews, Deputy Leader then responded to Councillor Greenhough’s question.
Councillor Andrews thanked Councillor Greenhough for his question on what was probably Barnsley’s, and the worlds, most pressing problem and concern.
He stated that officers from Licensing, Public Health and Regulatory Services have been working together to provide advice and support to licenced premises in the Borough during the pandemic, prior to and since such premises have been allowed to fully re-open.
The main priority leading up to re-opening had been focused around the town centre owing to suspected high footfall, crime and even potential terrorist threats. The guidance for hospitality hadn’t been published until a few days before re-opening, with the regulations being published the day before. However, the Council had pre-empted what this guidance would look like and had developed a check list, of what was already known about previous guidance in other areas. This check list had been sent around to all the contacts for licenced premises in the town centre. In addition to this, template risk assessments had been issued and a Webinar had been organised which was facilitated by Night Time Economy Solutions for venues.
The same information had also been sent around licenced premises via the BMBC’s Licencing Team and via the six Pub Watch Groups across the borough. Both Public Health and Licencing contact details had been given issued and Licensing Officers also visited all premises who either requested a visit, or which were a potential cause for concern. Licensing Officers usually visited premises in conjunction with colleagues from South Yorkshire Police Licensing.
Once the guidance had eventually been released the Council had summarised what measures licenced premises should implement, and this had been sent around venues using the methods previously reported.
As for all businesses, licenced premises could contact Regulatory Services for advice and support on safe opening by contacting regulatoryservices@barnsley.gov.uk this had been promoted on social media. Members of the public and employees could also report concerns to this in email box.
On the day of re-opening, Public Health and other colleagues from around the Council monitored the venues in the Town Centre throughout the day. Regular meetings took place via Microsoft Teams with officers from Licensing, Regulatory services and the Emergency Resilience Team receiving feedback on how the re-opening was going. This provided the opportunity to report any concerns which needed action/escalation, but fortunately the re-opening had gone well, and no major concerns or issues had been noted.
Work had been on-going and advice issued when there were changes – using the communication route previously described. There was a responsibility, however, for licenced premises to follow the guidance etc themselves, based on their risk assessment and this had been communicated to them – together with links to the relevant guidance page.
The Council was currently engaging in proactive and reactive venue visits. Proactive visits were carried out by Public Health and a team of volunteers from across the Council. These visits were to go through a check list that had been developed based on the main guidance and measures that should be in place and to offer free resources (signage, beer mats and floor splats) in addition to a guidance document and Standard Operating Procedure for suspected or confirmed cases (among staff or customers) and an outbreak Standard Operating Procedure.
The Council had a comprehensive tracker which highlighted the date and time of visits together with a comments section on how the visit went. These visits were very much supportive visits, to help the premises implement guidance so they were ‘Covid secure’.
Any concerns or questions noted at the proactive visits, would be forwarded to Regulatory Services for further investigation. The nature of the concern or questions would be assessed and it would be allocated to the most appropriate team to investigate further, either Licensing or Regulatory Services. Regular meetings were taking place between Public Health, Licensing and Regulatory Services, to manage the project, feedback on how things were going and if necessary, to make alterations to the approach to improve delivery of the project.
A webinar had taken place on the 17th September, 2020 to explain Covid requirements and guidance updates, to which licensees had been invited and encouraged to attend.
Councillor Andrews reported that Enforcement powers were delegated to the Licensing Service for issues relating to the premises licence, and with Regulatory Services relating to Covid and health and safety at work in these settings. In line with the Council’s enforcement policy enforcement would be undertaken in a fair and proportionate way. Cleary in the current circumstances the priority was to prevent the spread of the disease to keep Barnsley residents, employees and visitors safe.
The Mayor commented that time limit for the response to the question had been exceeded and in the circumstances Councillor Andrews agreed to circulate his full and detailed response to Councillor Greenhough and to all Members of the Council.
Councillor Greenhough did not have a supplementary question but he expressed thanks to Councillor Andrews for his most detailed response and to all officers including Licensing, Public Health and the South Yorkshire Police for the work they had undertaken in this.
(j) Councillor Kitching
‘What has happened to all the devices handed in by members and officers in the recent IT device refresh? Have these been cleaned and recycled?’
Councillor Gardiner, Cabinet Spokesperson for Core Services thanked Councillor Kitching for her question and the acknowledgement of the time spent by officers and Members in responding appropriately to questions.
He stated that where equipment that was handed in as part of tech refresh was technically able to support Office 365 it was redeployed to the workforce under the upgrade programme. Devices that were not capable are ‘wiped’ to comply with correct security standards and were deployed / donated where a requirement arose. As an example, during the COVID initial response phase around 100 devices had been deployed in to care homes to assist residents in keeping in contact with families / friends. Where devices did not comply, they were presented to be securely recycled under the strict directive of an external organisation.
Councillor Kitching thanked Councillor Gardiner for his response. Her supplementary questing had been whether or not the devices could be donated to schools or to deprived families within the borough, however, the Cabinet Spokesperson had already answered that in talking about donating them to care homes which was another really good idea and it was fantastic that the public would be able to hear today that this had happened. The recent move to virtual meetings had been challenging for a lot of people and it was good to be able to donate out of use hardware to others.
Councillor Gardiner thanked Councillor Kitchen for comments.
The Mayor reminded Members that this would be the last full Council meeting she would be chairing before the Annual Council meeting on the 22nd October, 2020 and she asked to place on record her thanks to all Members for their kindness, patience and understanding particularly as the Council had moved to virtual meetings which were not easy and could be extremely challenging.