Agenda item

To deal with any questions submitted under Council Procedure Rule A2.2(vi). The deadline for the receipt of questions has now expired.  Two eligible questions have been received. (Report attached)

Rules of Debate

·         Up to 30 minutes will be allowed for this item.

·         Questions will be put by the chair of the meeting and will receive an oral answer.

·         Questions which cannot be put within the allotted time will receive a written answer within 10 working days.

Two eligible questions had been received, which were set out in the report.  The Mayor read out the questions as submitted.

1)         Council Complaints Procedure

To the Leader of the Council (Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP) or relevant Portfolio Holder

Submitted byCouncillor Scott Brerton on behalf of Mr Peter Shaw

“The Council’s complaints procedure is designed to refer a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman if it is rejected at stage two.  This effectively creates a third stage to the process.

The Ombudsman will only deal with cases which directly affect an individual or a group of people.  This prevents complaints relating to Council practices and procedures being referred to a third stage.

Will the Council modify the complaints procedure to provide a third stage independent review that doesn’t need the Ombudsman to rule?”

Response:  The Leader thanked Mr Shaw for his question.  He stated that the Council took all complaints seriously and that the authority actively monitored them, with reports to both the Cabinet and Standards Committee and via the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) Annual Report.  Generally, the number of formal complaints was low and the LGSCO had not raised any concerns with the authority

The complaints procedure had been reviewed a few years ago and a decision had been taken to reduce the number of internal stages from three to two.  For most complaints a right of appeal to the LGSCO was available, effectively providing a third and final stage.  To introduce a third stage for those limited complaints which were not within the remit of the LGSCO did not appear to be proportionate and could be particularly burdensome as staff planned for Local Government Reorganisation.  The current approach was sound.  However, a much larger successor unitary authority might have a more comprehensive complaints procedure and the additional resource to address the issue raised by Mr Shaw.

2)         State of the Roads

To the Leader of the Council (Councillor Munsif Dad BEM JP) or relevant Portfolio Holder

Submitted by Councillor Noordad Aziz on behalf of Rubina Kauser

“What can the Leader of the Council do about the state of the roads in Great Harwood and Hyndburn as they are just deteriorating with my car requiring constant repair?”

Response: The Leader indicated that for most councillors in Hyndburn the biggest area of case work was around potholes on the highway and other road related issues.  Councillors were frequently asked why Lancashire County Council was not repairing them.

The County Council had millions of pounds available for highways works.  Councillor Dad pondered why the roads were worse now than at any other time previously?  He called upon the controlling Reform group to act to repair the roads.  The Government had provided an extra £20m to Lancashire County Council, making some £64m available in total for highways maintenance.  That Council had also raised its Council Tax for 2026/27.  Reform claimed to be improving roads, however repairs were not being caried out and lack of illumination on the M65 from Blackburn to Colne was also a concern.  In short, Lancashire’s roads were deteriorating.  The Leader undertook to send a letter to the County Council setting out this Council’s views.