- Author, Phil Wilkinson Jones
- Role, Local Democracy Reporting Service
A councillor has requested why ringfenced money supposed to assist Ukrainian refugees can’t be spent on cleansing up canine poo and litter as an alternative.
Alan Amos, of the Conservative Party, posed the query to joint Worcester City Council chief Lynn Denham throughout a council assembly on 26 March.
But he was knowledgeable the transfer can be “wholly inappropriate” and sure illegal.
Mr Amos’ feedback come after the council’s communities committee determined in January to allocate £86,515 over three years in direction of making Worcester a City of Sanctuary.
The title of City of Sanctuary would recognise Worcester’s tradition of solidarity and inclusiveness.
Birmingham, Bromsgrove & Redditch, Malvern and Herefordshire are simply a number of the areas that already maintain the title of City of Sanctuary.
During the assembly, Mr Amos stated: “Last week a big bin on the entrance to Pitmaston Park had not been emptied for thus lengthy that baggage of canine poo had been mendacity on prime of it and throughout it.
“When I requested why this had occurred I used to be informed the 2 assortment automobiles had each damaged down, so does this not show town’s cleansing and litter budgets have completely no resilience inside them when not less than this £90,000 may very well be used to purchase one other assortment van?”
Ms Denham responded: “I’m not conscious of the amount of canine poo inside councillor Amos’ ward.”
She added the funding for the City of Sanctuary venture can be offered by the Homes for Ukraine reserve grant and the Dispersed Accommodation grant.
Both grants are offered to the council by the federal government and each are ringfenced.
“It’s not funded from the council’s core price range and it’ll not create a income stress,” defined Ms Denham.
“Spending money on road cleaning from the Homes for Ukraine grant or Dispersed Accommodation grant can be wholly inappropriate use of that grant and one that might possible be illegal.”