Agenda item

Emergency Planning

BC asked the following question of the Portfolio Holder for Energy, Environment and Waste Services:

The threat of a nuclear war is greater than ever because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and potential for NATO countries, including the UK to become involved. President Putin has threatened to use nuclear weapons in which case NATO would almost certainly strike back. Weapons much more powerful than those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be involved resulting in immediate death, injury and destruction of buildings including hospitals. The after-effects include radiation poisoning, burns and cancers. Public services like water, power and sewerage would be destroyed and transport impossible.  What emergency plans does Nottingham City Council have in preparation for a nuclear warhead explosion in the vicinity of Nottingham?

Councillor Sally Longford replied as follows:

Can I thank the citizen for this timely question and say that I do share their concerns about heightened tensions in the world, we are in troubled times.  I’ve been responsible for emergency planning for last three years and can tell you that Nottingham City Council has responsibility to prepare for civil emergencies, not those related to war or nuclear attack. The Council takes its responsibilities for dealing with civil emergencies seriously and has a team that works with partners to write, train and exercise plans to cover those civil emergencies contained in the National Risk Register. As citizens would expect, they have been working very closely with a variety of agencies in recent years to help to keep people safe during the pandemic. I’d like to pay tribute to their hard work and dedication over this period of time. Whilst the National Risk Register includes references to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents, an attack on Nottingham by nuclear weapons is outside of the scope of the Risk Register and of the civil contingency duties on the Council. The Council has not been asked, or is required to have plans for such an incident. The plans we have are based the likely level of risk and impact. The Government could take powers under Part 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 which would allow it to make special temporary legislation to deal with the most serious of emergencies.  If ‘Part 2’ powers were implemented, Government would appoint a Regional Coordinator who would act as the focal point for co-ordination of response efforts. The Council, through the Local Resilience Forum, has many generic and specific plans, which would be used to address any response to the human and environmental issues caused by exposure to nuclear material but does not have plans for a nuclear strike on Nottingham.  Central Government is responsible for such planning, rather than local authorities, and can I suggest that the citizen puts his/ her question to their local MP who will be able to seek answers from the Government. Thank you.

Libraries

DC asked the following question of the Portfolio Holder for Leisure, Culture and Schools:

Following the recent announcement to consult on the closure of three historic community branch libraries, I, as a Nottingham citizen and member of the Save Nottingham Libraries campaign, am asking for additional information and transparency regarding the decision making stage including:

·  What are the next steps in the decision-making process?

·  What are the approximate timescales involved for each stage in the process.

·  Specifically, how long is the data analysis of the 2000+ survey responses going to take?

·  Do the slight amendments to the original consultation survey influence the data results?

·  In the spirit of transparency, will the Council publish a full report and Executive Summary outlining the total number of survey returns received during the consultation period, highlighting the main option preferences favoured by respondents?

·  How will the final decision regarding the library review be made and publicised?

Councillor Eunice Campbell-Clark replied as follows:

Many thanks Lord Mayor.  Could I thank the citizen for their question, which is quite detailed so I will go through each of the points. I have broken the information down under headings as some points being raised appear to be sub-questions under the same theme.

Theme 1:  What are the next steps and timescales in the decision-making process?

We have received in total 2,807 completed individual consultation submissions which included 396 responses to the adapted easy to read version survey introduced (13% of the total) and 132 completed school children submissions which equates to 4.5% of the total. In addition, 220 people took part in our on-line and in-person public consultation sessions, where key points and raised issues were also captured for consultation.  In terms of the next steps we are now going through all the responses received to ensure we have a clear understanding of the numerous points being raised.  This is expected to take six weeks with the aim being that a report and the detail of the consultation will be produced and where alternative proposals have been made, that these can be initially explored.  It is proposed that we will submit this completed report to the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee to review.  Following that review and any considerations that might arise from the process, an Executive Board report will be produced that will make recommendations for the final decision.  This is not expected to take place until the autumn.

Theme 2:  Do the slight amendments to the original consultation survey influence the data results?

You will see I have given the percentage of the results received via the amended surveys.  Those surveys were introduced as a response to a few concerns that were raised about the accessibility of the main consultation form.  I believe that being as responsive as we were was positive, and the amended forms have helped increase engagement and capture wider views, without detracting from the findings of the original main consultation survey. 

Theme 3:  In the spirit of transparency, will the Council publish a full report and Executive Summary outlining the total number of survey returns received during the consultation period, highlighting the main option preferences favoured by the respondents?

Yes.  Throughout the process we have been very transparent.  All reports and even transcripts from public meetings held have been published on the Council’s website ensuring that people can read what has been said.  This process will continue. 

Theme 4:  How will the final decision regarding the library review be made and publicised?

As stated earlier, there will be two key points where reports will be taken to public committees for councillors to scrutinise and finally agree a set of recommendations around future library delivery.  Overview and Scrutiny Committee will firstly look at the consultation process, the results and the validity of options that emerge from the consultation.  This will then be followed by a report to the Executive Board which will seek to finally agree recommendations for the future delivery network and transformation for the library service.  

Libraries

DC asked the following question of the Portfolio Holder for Leisure, Culture and Schools:
The Government, via the ‘Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities’ has recently announced that it is opening the bidding process for the next round of its Levelling Up funding, which is being made available to all Local Authorities across England. The £4.8 billion fund will support town centre and high street regeneration, local transport projects, and most importantly here, cultural and heritage assets. The government prospectus states the following in relation to the cultural investment strand: “maintaining, regenerating, or creatively repurposing existing cultural, creative, heritage and sporting assets … including theatres, museums, galleries, production facilities, libraries, visitor attractions …heritage buildings and sites, and assets that support the visitor economy.” I, as a Nottingham Citizen and member of the Save Nottingham Libraries campaign, would ask whether Nottingham City Council could provide a rationale for why it would or would not make a bid for these funds to help save the three historic branch libraries currently earmarked for closure.

Councillor Eunice Campbell-Clark replied as follows:

Thank you again Lord Mayor.  The Levelling Up Fund is designed to invest in infrastructure that improves everyday life across the UK. The £4.8 billion fund will support town centres and high street regeneration, local transport projects, and cultural and heritage assets.  In Nottingham City we are eligible to submit up to three bids up to £20 million each, but these must be spread equally across parliamentary constituencies (MP support is required) and bids have to meet local strategic priorities.  Bids submitted will be rigorously assessed on characteristics of place, strategic fit, economic benefit, and deliverability. Investment proposals submitted must focus on supporting high priority and high impact schemes.  This funding is not available to support ongoing ‘day to day running costs’, such as libraries, but is designed for one off capital development schemes that will help bring longer term economic regeneration benefits for local areas.

This is the second round of Levelling Up funding offered. In the first round Nottingham City submitted three bids and was only successful with one of those - £18million towards improvements to our streets and roads.  We are currently developing options, building on the lessons learnt from our first round of submissions to determine our bidding strategy for the second round of Levelling Up funding.  It is important that the City secures future funding and chooses appropriately scaled and deliverable projects that can meet all the objectives laid out from the strands of funding.  We are currently developing options for which schemes will make the strongest case to Government for this funding.

Nottingham City Homes

JK asked the following question of the Portfolio Holder for Housing, Planning and Heritage:

How does the Council police its agents Nottingham City Homes with regard to the health and safety of residents?  In one building alone containing 14 flats Nottingham City Homes failed to respond to several incidents which could impact the health and safety of residents in a timely manner. An example is detailed below, there are others, all of which are factually accurate, residents have documentary and pictorial evidence.  Nottingham City Homes have issued a charter to all residents stating “Safety is our top priority” and they will “Prioritise any contact that may have a building safety implication”. It appears that Nottingham City Homes put safety of the residents a very poor second to its propaganda.
The example is: Dangerously damaged manhole covers in a common access area in constant use – It was not prioritised and not deal with for over 3 months.
You as the Landlord maybe held liable if a resident or visitor was injured.

Councillor Linda Woodings replied as follows:

Thank you Lord Mayor.  I also want to thank the citizen for their question in relation to repairs at a specific apartment block.  Nottingham City Homes (NCH) is the management agent for the Council’s housing stock and, as such, responsibility for management and maintenance is delegated to Nottingham City Homes to deal with. One of the repairs referred to by the citizen was escalated to me and I sought an urgent report on that repair.  However complaints of this nature would, in the first instance, usually be referred to Nottingham City Homes and dealt with via their complaints procedures.

As a more general response, the Council engages with NCH’s performance in a number of ways. Within NCH the ALMO Board is tenant led, but also has two councillor appointees on the Board as well.  A major part of this Board’s role is to monitor the services received by tenants, including repairs performance. It receives reports on general repairs performance, complaints handling, emergency repairs, on the gas and electricity check and compliance, on fire safety checks and management. Performance is benchmarked against the Housemark industry standard. Repairs satisfaction has dipped due to significant staffing and supply issues caused by Covid, however NCH still benchmarks in the upper median compared to other housing organisations.

Within the Council there is a joint Building Safety Group between Nottingham City Council and Nottingham City Homes officers which looks at policy and risk in relation to building safety matters and also logs serious incidents such as fires and their investigations. NCH’s performance in general, including in relation to repairs, complaints and safety, is monitored by a range of performance indicators that are reported to the Partnership Forum, which I currently Chair but as from tomorrow my colleague Councillor Toby Neal will Chair. Any incidents or particular concerns can be raised by the Council for a response from NCH through any of these channels.  NCH is pro-active in relation to building safety and has been working for a considerable period of time on preparation for the additional responsibilities of the Social Housing Bill.

This is a shortened version of the question originally submitted which raised four specific repairs and I asked for reports on each and every one of these. For context, at the time the manhole covers in the courtyard were reported in February 2021 there was a nationwide Covid lockdown, schools were still closed, infection rates were very high, and councils, including our ALMO, had significant numbers of staff isolating or actually off with Covid and the vaccine had only just been made available to those aged 70 and over.  So NCH prioritised emergency appointments with the staff that they had available.  Another repair in July 2021 regarding a fire door was checked to ensure safety the day after it was reported but not repaired until 14 days later. The door was boarded up within 24 hours, the glass was ordered immediately and fitted as soon as it became available, but at that time in July 2021 glass was not as readily available and lead-in times were slightly longer due to Covid-19.  A different repair to a fire door was escalated to me 2 months ago, March 2022. It was checked the same day as it was reported and it was deemed not to compromise the fire safety of that door. The glass was ordered immediately the following day and fitted as soon as received 27 days later.  Another repair referenced in November 2021 was repaired the day after it was reported.  Health and safety issues which pose an immediate risk are treated as emergency works, whereby Nottingham City Homes aims to attend within 4 hours and make safe within 24 hours. If it is deemed that by making safe the repair there is no immediate risk to tenants, residents, visitors and the general public a full repair will normally be undertaken within 30 days.  With regards to fire doors generally, where glass is cracked it poses little or no impact on the integrity of the fire door, nevertheless, as a first port of call where it is established that replacement glass is required, measurements are taken and the replacement glass is ordered from the supplier within 24 hours of the first attendance and, depending on the glass and the supplier, the process is to fit the glass as soon as it becomes available which is usually, in normal times, within 5 to 10 working days. Where glass is broken the same process applies, however the door is boarded up whilst the glass is manufactured.

Thank you.