charnwood borough council · 2012-09-24 · depots. a substantial number of sandless sandbags had...

Council – 17th September 2012

Published – 24th September 2012 1

CHARNWOOD BOROUGH COUNCIL

MEETING OF THE CHARNWOOD BOROUGH COUNCIL HELD IN

THE PRESTON ROOM, WOODGATE CHAMBERS, LOUGHBOROUGH ON 17TH SEPTEMBER 2012

PRESENT

The Mayor (Councillor D. Wise)

The Deputy Mayor (Councillor S. Forrest) Councillor T. Barkley Councillor L. Bebbington Councillor I. Bentley Councillor M. Blain Councillor J. Bradshaw Councillor B. Burr Councillor R. Campsall Councillor J. Capleton Councillor C. Carter Councillor J. Choudhury Councillor P. Day Councillor C. Duffy Councillor H. Fryer Councillor D. Grimley Councillor S. Hampson Councillor P. Harley Councillor C. Harris Councillor J. Hunt Councillor M. Hunt Councillor S. Jones Councillor K. Jones Councillor R. Jukes

Councillor J. Miah Councillor J. Morgan Councillor B. Newton Councillor K. Pacey Councillor A. Paling Councillor T. Parton Councillor C. Poole Councillor C. Radford Councillor P. Ranson Councillor B. Seaton Councillor R. Sharp Councillor R. Shepherd Councillor D. Slater Councillor M. Smidowicz Councillor M. Smith Councillor S. Smith Councillor D. Snartt Councillor N. Stork Councillor J. Sutherington Councillor E. Vardy Councillor A. Williams Councillor P. Youell

Honorary Aldermen J. Bush, B. Dodd, F. Hurst and J. Tormey.

24. OPENING PRAYERS

The Reverend Robert Gladstone opened the meeting with prayers and remembered those who were recently bereaved following the loss of a loved one. In particular, Council’s thoughts were with Councillor Bokor and Councillor Barkley, both of whom had sadly lost their mothers over the weekend.



25. APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors J. Bokor, D. Gaskell, L. Harper-Davies, M. Lowe and P. Osborne and from Honorary Alderman T Scott.

26. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY AND PERSONAL INTEREST

Disclosures of interest were made as follows: (i) by Councillor Snartt – personal interest, having made representations

through Leicestershire County Council, in item 6.3 on the agenda – Questions on Notice – Proposed Traveller Sites;

(ii) by Councillor Snartt – personal interest, with a granddaughter who attends Rawlins Community College, in item 6.9 on the agenda, Questions on Notice – Rawlins Swimming Pool;

(iii) by Councillor Shepherd – personal interest, as a member of the Rawlins Sport and Physical Activity Sub-Committee, in 6.9 on the agenda, Questions on Notice – Rawlins Swimming Pool;

(iv) by Councillors Ranson and Slater – personal interest, as trustees of Rawlins Academy, in 6.9 on the agenda, Questions on Notice – Rawlins Swimming Pool; and

(v) by Councillors Day, Jukes and Ranson, as members of the Board of Charnwood Neighbourhood Housing, in any item on the agenda relating to Charnwood Neighbourhood Housing.

27. MINUTES

The Mayor advised Councillors that there was an administrative error in the version of the minutes circulated with the agenda. Minute 16.5 HRA Surplus, the response to the question should read “In response the Lead Member for Finance and Property Services, Councillor Barkley, stated that”. This had been corrected on the published version.

Therefore, it was resolved that minutes of the meeting of Council held on 25th June 2012 were confirmed and signed.

28. ANNOUNCEMENTS 28.1 MAYORS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS

The Mayor made the following announcements:



New Councillors

“Since Council on 25th June, two new Councillors have joined Charnwood Borough Council: Councillor Ken Jones, was re-elected to the Council on 28th June, following a short retirement, to represent Sileby Ward, following the sad loss of Councillor Brown. Councillor Ted Parton was elected on 13th September, and officially takes his seat as a Councillor today representing Loughborough Southfields, following Councillor Graeme Smith stepping down due to his new work commitments. May I on behalf of the Council congratulate you both on your election and welcome you as Councillors.

Civic Service

“I would like to extend an invitation to you to attend my Civic Service, which will be held on Sunday 23rd September 2012 at Saint Mary and Saint John Parish Church, Rothley, commencing at 10.30am. The service is expected to last for approximately one hour, after the service you are invited to refreshments in the Old School Rooms. If you would like any further information, please do not hesitate to contact my Office”.

28.2 LEADER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

The Leader welcomed Councillor K. Jones and Councillor Parton to the Council and congratulated Councillor Blain on obtaining a doctorate in Business Administration.

28.3 CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S ANNOUNCEMENTS The Chief Executive made no announcements.

29. PETITIONS No petitions were received.

30. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

30.1 TORCH RELAY

Councillor Ranson had given notice under Council Procedure Rule 5 (i) of the following question: “As Charnwood was one of the many locations that hosted the Torch relay, does the Leader consider the event a success and does he have any idea how many people were involved in organising the event?”



In response the Lead Member for Leisure, Art and Culture, Councillor Harley, stated that: “The Torch relay was very successful because: The people of Charnwood embraced the opportunity to line the street and turned up in their thousands to support their local heroes who were selected by local people to carry the Olympic flame in celebration of London 2012 and the Olympic Games. It was estimated that over 60,000 people lined the streets in Charnwood and cheered the progression of the torch. The crowds at Quorn, Epinal Way, Loughborough University, Loughborough Town Centre Hoton and Wymeswold were all much bigger than expected and were all in excellent humour. Charnwood Borough Council liaised with over 35 Schools in advance of the torch relay which resulted in the best possible positions being secured along the route for the children to view the torch taking the children’s welfare and safety into account. Local communities were able to showcase their talents on the day as part of the torch relay celebrations. Supported by officers the crowds were entertained by schools choirs bands, stilt walkers, marching parades, dance groups, exercise classes and community groups along with the Presenting Partners (Official Olympic Sponsors) Community Leaders assisted in the recruitment of a hundreds of volunteers who attended training sessions to help with crowd and traffic management supporting and working along side Council Officers and Professionals on the day. Extensive planning was conducted in advance of the dress rehearsal for the torch relay and the resulting event management plans were then tested in partnership with the many agencies involved in the delivery of the torch relay. This learning was shared nationally and the later used to finalise our own event plans for the actual torch relay on July 3rd. Over 370 people reported for duty to assist Charnwood in the delivery of the torch relay on the 3rd of July. This figure does NOT include all of the other people from the following organisations agencies. The Police, LOCOG, EMAS, St Johns, Fire Service, Highways, National Health Service, Loughborough University, Quorn Station, Olympic Sponsors Loughborough Churches, Show Sec Security, Schools, Parish Councils, Serco, VAL, Loughborough Colleges.



Charnwood Borough Council worked closely with a huge number of agencies”. Councillor Ranson thanked all those involved with the organisation of events in the Borough running up to and during the Olympics and as a supplementary question asked what were the main events that had been organised? In response, Councillor Harley, agreed that events in the Borough had been well organised, particularly the Torch relay. He added that the main event organised was Games Time in Southfields Park, Loughborough. For this event there was four and half thousand people present, with no incidents, and it demonstrated that Southfields Park could be used for significant events. Councillor Harley added that the Big Screen in Loughborough Market Place had also been very popular.

30.2 FLOODING

Councillor Smidowicz had given notice under Council Procedure Rule 5 (i) of the following question:

“What has the Council learned from the serious flooding incident in Loughborough earlier this year?”

In response the Deputy leader, Councillor Hampson, stated that:

“The flooding that occurred in and around Loughborough in late June and early July 2012 occurred as a result of an unusually high amount of rainfall, with a month’s worth of rain falling in under an hour in one incident. This caused an unprecedented amount of water to soak into the water courses and drainage/sewerage systems which were unable to cope” “The Met Office issued various severe weather warnings over this period which the Council responded to promptly; initial preparatory actions included warning and informing people within low lying areas that were covered in the local community flood plans, contacting local community flood wardens, and readying sandbag stocks at Council depots. A substantial number of sandless sandbags had already been distributed across the Borough to town and parish councils”. “The Council had a stock of approximately 3,000 sandless sandbags in preparation for such flooding emergencies. During the flooding the Major Incident Plan and Flood Plan were activated, and over 1,000 of these sandbags were delivered to vulnerable persons and premises”. “The sandbag stocks have since been replenished. Although there is no legal requirement for local authorities to provide sandbags, in



recognition of the importance of preparing for flooding incidents this Council has and will continue to maintain sandbags in stock”. “However, education to the public will also continue to improve awareness of the need for self-help and preparedness; i.e. the purchase of their own sandbags or other flood protection items, especially for those within identified flood risk areas”. “Joint working between the emergency services, the Council, and other local authorities ensured an effective prioritisation of incidents and the appropriate targeting of resources. This was via a multi-agency group which was convened at Police Headquarters”. “The Emergency Centres plan was also activated as a result of the flooding of premises on Trackside Close, Loughborough and the evacuation of their occupants, although eventually the centre was not needed”. “Through the Council’s membership of the Local Resilience Forum Flood Working Group, ongoing work with the Environment Agency will continue, especially in the areas of Woodbrook and Burleigh Brook, with further clearance and maintenance of blockage grills”. “Flood wardens in the Loughborough area were involved during the flooding, and proved able assistants to both the Environment Agency and the Council in monitoring and reporting on water levels. This good work will be added to with ongoing training for the wardens, including a planned exercise later this year”. “Co-operation between Leicestershire Highways Department and the Council in the allocation and distribution of sandbags and drain maintenance will continue through the Flood Working Group, as will liaison with utility companies such as Severn Trent in the maintenance of sewerage systems”.

30.3 PROPOSED TRAVELLER SITES Councillor Jukes had given notice under Council Procedure Rule 5 (i)

of the following question:

“Is the Leader aware of the actions which have been taken and are being taken by a group called the LE4 group with regard to the issues surrounding four proposed travellers’ sites in the LE4 post code area in the Leicester City area. The first anyone knew about these sites was when the Leicester City Council identified them as their chosen sites to comply with Government directive. It was presented as almost a fait accompli”.



“The LE4 group took it upon themselves to challenge the proposals and it is fair to say that their early public meetings were horrendous. Feelings were running so high that the meetings were virtually unmanageable and so a small subgroup chaired by Roy Rollings, have created a much more structured campaign to call the City Council to account and this has had some success”.

“The LE4 group are not opposed to Travellers per se. They object to the fact that the proposed sites are in close proximity to each other and the residents of the LE4 postal area. There would appear to have been no attempt to disperse them around the City. The Group were also concerned about the lack of consultations with the general public and the travellers themselves”.

“In consequence of this representation by the Group, more discussions have taken place and some changes have been made. They would argue that these changes are too little and too late and the proposed situation is, on the face of it, far from satisfactory but they have had at least had their say. Whether that will be taken into consideration remains to be seen”.

“Does the Leader agree that the LE4 group should be commended for their efforts in attempting to resolve democratically this very emotive issue and does he also agree that this adds weight to the Stirling efforts put in by all members of the Travelling Communities Strategy Scrutiny Group here at Charnwood in an attempt to avoid a similar debacle?” In response the Lead Member for Communities and Health, Councillor Snartt, stated: “The work of LE4 Group to draw attention to their concerns is commendable and the Borough Council will positively encourage community groups to actively engage in local decision making”. “The work of the Travelling Communities Scrutiny Group is welcomed and demonstrates excellent collaborative work between the council and its partners and stakeholders to understand the issues affecting gypsy and traveller communities as well as those communities affected by unauthorised settlement”. “The Borough Council will continue to work with communities so as to ensure their continued engagement in the identification of future sites within future Development Plan Documents”.

Councillor Jukes asked a supplementary question as to whether the Council would oppose planning permission for a traveller site at Greengate Lane, Leicester?



In response, the Lead Member for Communities and Health, Councillor Snartt, added that Cabinet had received a thorough report from the Travelling Community Strategy Scrutiny Panel and the Council had made representations to Leicester City Council concerning their proposals. There were deep concerns by residents in Charnwood, which needed to be considered by Leicester City Council and the Borough Council would ensure that these issues and concerns were represented appropriately as detailed proposals came forward.

30.4 NEW HOUSING

Councillor Grimley had given notice under Council Procedure Rule 5 (i) of the following question:

“In the Core Strategy requirements for housing in the Borough how many houses in Charnwood are being proposed to accommodate the growth of Leicester?” In response the Lead Member for Planning and Sustainability, Councillor Blain, stated: “It is not possible to work out how many houses are required in Charnwood to accommodate the growth of Leicester. This is because part of Charnwood Borough falls within a wider housing market area known as the Leicester Principal Urban Area (PUA). The PUA does not follow traditional administrative boundaries but extends across a number of local authority areas to include all of Leicester City as well as parts of Charnwood (including Birstall, Thurmaston), Blaby, Harborough and Oadby and Wigston. The housing requirement for the PUA has been worked out on the basis of housing needs across the whole area and not just for Leicester City”. “Charnwood’s share of the PUA housing requirement is 7,260 dwellings between 2006 and 2028. As of 31 March 2012 1,367 had been built or had planning permission leaving a balance of 5,893 dwellings to be found”. Councillor Grimley asked a supplementary question on when Charnwood Borough Council had agreed to the housing requirement under the Leicester Principal Urban Area. In response, the Lead Member for Planning and Sustainability, Councillor Blain, stated that the Housing requirements for the Leicester Principal Urban Area were agreed by Cabinet in December 2005 in its response to the emerging strategy in the proposed Regional Plan.



30.5 RESIDENTIAL CAR PARKING Councillor M. Smith had given notice under Council Procedure Rule 5

(i) of the following question:

“Would the Leader please tell me if anything further can be done to protect car park spaces provided for flats and sheltered housing so that these are not taken by non-residents, workers or students, causing great inconvenience to generally elderly and/or disabled residents and their visitors?” In response the Lead Member for Housing and Regulatory Services, Councillor Hunt, stated: “In relation to car parks that are owned by the Council, there are a number of measures that can be considered to try and resolve parking problems. Such measures can include the following: (i) Signage outlining that the car parking spaces are for residents

and/or visitors only. All of the Council owned car parks associated with such flats and sheltered accommodation do already have signs in place. These are only advisory and not enforceable.

(ii) Barrier systems can be installed allowing entry for residents only,

which would be at a capital cost, with on-going revenue expense for maintaining them and also additional resources to issue codes, keys or passes to residents and visitors. The cost would be dependant on the type of system and layout of the car park. There are currently no plans to install such systems.

(iii) Change the parking restrictions for the car parks under the Parking Places Order, which could be restricted parking and the issuing of Parking Permits. This would also require additional resources to administer the schemes and undertake any enforcement and issuing of Penalty Charges.”

Councillor M. Smith made a statement highlighting parking issues at George Beacon Court, Park Court and Victoria Street flats, adding that problems occurred with parking spaces being used for neighbouring businesses, premises and schools. Councillor M. Smith added that the situation occurred across the Borough and it needed to be addressed. In response, the Lead Member for Housing and Regulatory Services, Councillor J. Hunt, invited Councillor M. Smith to speak to her concerning the cases she had raised in order that solutions could be explored.



30.6 CHANGES TO COUNCIL TAX BENEFIT Councillor J Miah had given notice under Council Procedure Rule 5 (i)


“Can the Leader inform council what the reduction will be in monetary terms of the governments proposed 10% cut to Council Tax benefit from April next year?” “Can he tell us up to how many people in Charnwood will be affected by this change and which council tax property banding they fall under?” In response the Leader of the Council, Councillor Slater, stated: “The actual figures are still to be confirmed by DCLG but the Council expects reduction in funding of Council Tax Benefit to be in the region of £930,000 based on the 2011/12 expenditure of £9.3 million”. “Out of the £930, 000 only around 10% (£90,000) is directly attributable to Charnwood Borough Council as the remainder is based on the share relating to the major preceptors, Leicestershire County Council, and the Fire and Police Authorities”. “It should be noted that a public consultation in respect of the Council’s requirement to introduce a new local scheme of council tax support is underway. This consultation, which closes on 28th September, can be accessed through our website. Following the consultation a new local scheme will be designed, balancing the impact of the funding reductions on the vulnerable against the need to make the scheme financially sustainable for both the Council and our major preceptor partners. The timetable requires that this scheme be ratified at the next meeting of Council on 12th November where all members will have the opportunity to debate the proposals presented”. “Based on the existing draft regulations there is requirement to exclude all pensioners from any impact of reduced levels of benefit. Therefore the new scheme will only affect customers who are classed as ‘working age.’ The most recent analysis shows that 5,312 working age customers were in receipt of Council Tax Benefit. This would represent the maximum number of recipients who might be affected. Until the scheme design is finalised it is not possible to detail how many individuals will ultimately be affected or under which council tax band they would fall”. Councillor Miah made a statement adding that some residents were currently struggling to pay their Council Tax and he was concerned that they would be going without food or heat in order to pay



increased charges. Councillor Miah added that nationally the policy had been condemned, which included by many local authorities. In response, the Leader of the Council, Councillor Slater, stated that the legislation had not been enacted and that trials were being undertaken. However, the amount to be found by Charnwood Borough Council was £90,000 and it had been agreed by the Leaders of the local authorities participating in Leicestershire and Rutland that safeguards would be built into the scheme to protect the vulnerable. Councillors had been briefed and the information from the briefing was available on the Council’s website.

30.7 COUNCIL TAX ARREARS Councillor J Miah had given notice under Council Procedure Rule 5 (i)


“Can the Leader tell us what are the arrears levels for Council Tax collection so far this financial year? Can he also inform us if officers are expecting a rise in arrears in Council Tax collection for the next financial year? If the answer is yes can he elaborate on why that might be and the likely causes?” In response the Leader of the Council, Councillor Slater, stated: “In the year 2011/12 the collection rate for Council Tax was 97.92 %. It is anticipated that a similar collection rate will be achieved in 2012/13”. “If the proposed legislation in relation to the introduction of Local Council Tax Support is approved in Government during October 2012 it is widely accepted that nationally a reduction in Council Tax collection rate could be in the region of 0.2 to 0.8%”. “The Council will seek to minimise the impact by offering a number of payment options and actively promoting assistance to people who are finding it difficult to pay”. “The main reasons are likely to be attributable to a number of existing benefit recipients being required to pay additional council tax or the impact of other aspects of the Welfare Reform Act. However until the detailed legislation, and the final design of the Council’s new local scheme for council tax support are known, the likely impact on council tax collection rates is difficult to quantify”.

Councillor Miah made a statement that council tax arrears were

currently running at 0.7%, which was around £640,000, which would potentially rise to £1.6 million. Councillor Miah added that this was a



year on year problem and could result in the Council pursuing vulnerable people for payment through the courts.

In response, the Leader of the Council, Councillor Slater, stated that

outstanding Council Tax was being collected in the normal way, hardship funds were available and people would not be driven into poverty and it was a priority to protect vulnerable people across Charnwood.

30.8 CORE STRATEGY TRANSPORT MODELLING Councillor M. Hunt had given notice under Council Procedure Rule 5

(i) of the following question:

1. “According to a presentation given to the County Scrutiny Commission on 5th September 2012 the fundamental assumptions set when using the LLITM model are published with each set of results. This essential information is not currently provided in the Charnwood Core Strategy Transport Evidence Base, would the Leader therefore provide all the assumptions set for the latest MVA modelling?”

2. “What is the current estimated increase in morning peak traffic flow

from the new SUE development at Thurmaston through Barkby/Barkby Thorpe?”

3. “Would the Leader indicate what increase in flow and congestion in

morning peak hour traffic is currently estimated within the Borough's evidence base, as a result of a West Loughborough SUE (a) on the A512 (east and west bound),.(b) and what increase in traffic flow at Thorpe Hill, Loughborough?”

4. “On 3rd July 2012, the Head of Planning reported a "difference of

opinion between Leicestershire County Council and the Highways Agency regarding the transport model adopted by the County Council" which he said was the cause of further delay's to Charnwood's Core Strategy. Could the Leader confirm this has been resolved and if so, in what way, compromise or other resolution?”

In response the Lead Member for Planning and Sustainability, Councillor Blain, stated:

1. “The forecasting assumptions within LLITM are detailed in the

County Council's suite of reports that explain how the model works. A full set of the assumptions are available from the County Council on request. In the latest strategic modelling work, MVA Consulting (highway consultants appointed to undertake the modelling work on Charnwood’s behalf) have not rehearsed the



full set of assumptions in their report, only those that are relevant to the particular parts of the model they have used. The assumptions are set out throughout the report”.

“Members may wish to be reminded that a question and answer session with MVA Consulting and Leicestershire County Council has been arranged for all councillors to provide an opportunity to find out more about the model and the conclusions of the stage 1 modelling work. This event will take place on 16 October and further details will be issued in due course. If members require any assistance in the interim on any aspect of the model officers will be pleased to help”.

2. “LLITM models the cumulative impact of development across the

whole of the Borough for a number of different development strategy scenarios. The increase in morning peak traffic flow travelling through Barkby and Barkby Thorpe must be considered in light of this, rather than purely from the proposed North East of Leicester development. The modelling indicates that the impact on traffic flow from the North East of Leicester SUE in the morning through Barkby and Barkby Thorpe is forecast to increase from between 100 to 150 vehicles. The modelling also indicates that on some routes through Barkby and Barkby Thorpe traffic flows are expected to decrease. With highway and public transport mitigation in place, the modelling indicates that the impact on traffic flow in the morning through Barkby and Barkby Thorpe is forecast to decrease by 200 vehicles”.

“The reduction is because the mitigation package associated with North East Thurmaston SUE includes a spine road, running through the SUE, joining Barkby Thorpe Road and King Street. Capacity enhancements at A607/Barkby Thorpe Lane and Troon Way/Barkby Road junctions are also part of the mitigation package. An additional link to Sandhills Avenue from the spine road provides a bypass to Barkby Thorpe Road, resulting in a reduction of more than 200 vehicles along Barkby Thorpe Road. The model shows a slight reduction in traffic around Barkby village due to the existing traffic finding alternative routes to accommodate the traffic emanating from North East of Thurmaston SUE”.

3. “As with the previous question, LLITM models the cumulative

impact of development across the whole of the Borough. Therefore, the flows in the vicinity of the West of Loughborough development must be considered in this light. MVA Consulting advise that flow and congestion are one and the same thing.

a) It is not possible to distinguish the traffic impacts (flow and

congestion changes) of a single development site from the



traffic impacts of other sites from the study. This is because development strategy scenarios have been modelled and not individual sites. The point is particularly valid in the case of West Loughborough SUE as two other potential development options (Science Park and Shepshed) are in the vicinity.

Looking at Development Strategy 1 for example, compared to the 2026 Reference Case, the modelling indicates that the impact on traffic flow from development in the vicinity (and not just from the West of Loughborough SUE) along the A512 is forecast to increase to between 100 and 150 vehicles in both eastbound and westbound directions. There is a small section of the A512 (between the West Loughborough development access junction and Science Park access junction) where the increase is more than 400 vehicles, but this is mainly due to the Science Park and not the West Loughborough SUE. This section is in effect a ‘dog leg’ in what is a partial western distributor road. These flow increases are without any highway or public transport mitigation in place. With public transport and highway mitigation in place, the modelling indicates that the impact on traffic flow from developments in the vicinity (and not just from the West of Loughborough SUE) along the A512 is forecast to increase to between 100 and 400 vehicles in both eastbound and westbound directions. The reason for this increase is that the mitigation package for West Loughborough SUE includes a partial western distributor road from A512 to A6 North. This bypass provides an attractive route for traffic travelling between western parts of the Borough and the northern edges of Loughborough (and other villages/towns towards the north). As a result, there is a significant increase in traffic along the A512 between M1 Motorway J23 and the junction with the western distributor road. The increase in traffic between the western distributor road junction and Snell's Nook Lane is associated with Science Park traffic and dualling of A512 (between M1 Motorway and Snell's Nook Lane).

b) The provision of a partial western distributor road for West

Loughborough SUE also provides relief to Old Ashby Road and Thorpe Hill as the traffic flow decreases by around 100 vehicles on Old Ashby Road and 150 vehicles along Thorpe Hill”.

4. “The 'difference of opinion' related to concerns the Highways

Agency had with regard to the validation of LLITM, specifically associated to the ‘sensitivity analyses’. This issue has now been



resolved as a review of the Strategic Road Network was undertaken to address the concerns of the Highways Agency, who are now happy for the model to be used for the strategic assessment of the Borough Council’s preferred development strategy. As is normal, a more detailed assessment for highway mitigation will be undertaken by the Highways Agency themselves”.

Councillor M. Hunt made a statement in which he asked for a copy of the transport modelling in order to understand the assumption made within it. He added that as part of a proposed Garendon / Loughborough West Sustainable Urban Extension, a western distributor road was proposed. Councillor M. Hunt asked where would the road go and how would it distribute the traffic. In response, the Lead Member for Planning and Sustainability, Councillor Blain, stated that the transport modelling belonged to Leicestershire County Council and therefore it should be requested directly from them. The western distributor road proposed for North West Loughborough had been modelled to see if it would work in terms of traffic distribution. The modelling proposals were the subject of Cabinet consideration on 27th September 2012.

30.9 RAWLINS SWIMMING POOL Councillor Bradshaw had given notice under Council Procedure Rule

5 (i) of the following question:

“Can the Leader explain why such a well used pool such as Rawlins has not been given extra funding from the Council to keep it open? In various areas of the UK such as Torquay the Council have allocated £150,000 to extend the pool’s life. What about the legacy from the Olympics? Surely if the Council can afford to spend over £150,000 on Council office refurbishment then together with the £1m from David Wilson property developers why can they not put that amount to Rawlins pool so it can remain open? Has the Borough Council been involved in discussions to keep it open?”

In response the Lead Member for Communities and Health, Councillor Snartt, stated that: “A range of partners have been involved in discussions over a period of time regarding Rawlins Swimming Pool, including Sport England, the Borough Council, Leicester-Shire and Rutland Sport and the Parish Council”. “Originally Rawlins Community College identified approximately £150,000 of repair costs as being required to keep the swimming pool open”.



“An off-site recreation contribution of £145,000 was included in the Fenny Copse Farm, Meynell Road, section 106 agreement, towards the repair and refurbishment of the swimming pool at Rawlins Community College”. “Recently, Sport England, as part of its involvement, commissioned a detailed Swimming Pool Condition Survey to identify the full costs of bringing the pool back into operation. The condition survey identified that a minimum of £2.2 million was required to be spent on the existing facility to bring it in line with current swimming pool operational guidelines and meet the recommended community use standard of facilities”. “Sport England have previously identified as part of their Facilities Planning Models that Charnwood has a significant over provision of swimming pool water space to meet current and future demands of its population based on analysis. As a result, Sport England, have indicated that based on the level of cost required to bring the pool up to standard, in conjunction with the needs / demand analysis that they would not support a funding bid if submitted”. “As a result, there is a significant unachievable gap in the amount of funding required to bring the pool back into operation”. “In support of Olympic Legacy, the Borough Council and Leicester-Shire and Rutland Sport continue to work with Rawlins Community College to explore future alternative sporting / recreational uses for the existing swimming pool building and potential funding opportunities”.

Councillor Bradshaw made a statement in which she added that she was pleased that discussions had been undertaken on the future of the pool. She added that putting the off-site recreation contribution to dry land facilities would not be an equivalent and that it was important to continue the Olympic swimming legacy and encourage health and wellbeing in the Borough. She added that people had stopped swimming rather than travel since the pool had closed. Councillor Bradshaw added that other towns supported swimming facilities and that the Council had spent £150,000 on Council office refurbishment which could have been directed to repairs to the Rawlins swimming pool. In response, the Lead Member for Communities and Health, Councillor Snartt, stated that he was sad that the facility had to close, however, a minimum of £2.2 million had to be found for refurbishment and as a community facility the pool had not been able to make money for its upkeep. Councillor Snartt added that the refurbishment of the Council offices would enable partners to use our facilities,



which would provide an income stream. There was a much greater funding gap in respect of the swimming pool and there was not enough funds available through existing sources of funding, such as section 106 money and Sport England funding.

30.10 RATCLIFFE ROAD Councillor Harris had given notice under Council Procedure Rule 5 (i)


“Would the Lead Member please organise a clean-up and some upgrading of the streets around Ratcliffe Road. Now that there is new-build it contrasts badly with that. To this end would it be possible for an Officer to engage with the local residents through the Sidings Park Residents Association to gain their views?” In response the Lead Member for Waste Operations and Open Spaces, Councillor Fryer, stated: “The area around Radcliffe Road has been designated a Zone 1 as “High Density Housing” for Street Cleaning, which is the same designation for Burder Street, Tow Path Close, Cartwright Street, Glebe Street which also includes the alleyways between Burder Street / Ratcliffe Road and Cartwright Street”. “Councillor Miah requested Litter Bins to be installed on Sidings Walk and Station Boulevard, however as these roads are not adopted by the Council, Environmental and Green Spaces suggested relocating two Litter Bins to an adjacent area”. “On the 27th July Councillor Miah was informed that two Litter bins had be relocated to Glebe Street close to where it meets Sidings Walk and another litter bin re-located to Nottingham Road where it meets with Station Boulevard”. “However, the new development named Thomas Cook Place has not yet been adopted by the County Council. (And therefore Charnwood are not responsible for cleaning this area of land until it’s been adopted)”. “The department already has a number of direct links with residents and interested groups, and welcomes the opportunity to engage with local residents from all areas”. Councillor Harris made a statement in which she welcomed the fact that the area was designated Zone 1 for cleaning. She added that a recent campaign by the Council highlighted the importance of cleanliness, however, two litter bins had been moved in the area, one from outside a shop.



In response, the Lead Member for Waste Operations and Open Spaces, stated that officers had consulted with residents concerning the cleanliness of the area and the Council was happy to continue a dialogue with the local community concerning the issue, however, it was designated the highest cleaning frequency and was regularly monitored. Concerning the relocation of the litter bins, Councillor Fryer stated she would clarify the situation with officers and provide a written response (in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 5(iii)(c)).

30.11 CHILD POVERTY

Councillor Carter had given notice under Council Procedure Rule 5 (i) of the following question:

“According to research by Loughborough University, the ward of Loughborough Ashby now has a child poverty rate of 42% for the year 2011, up from 36% for 2010 and now has the highest rate of child poverty in Leicestershire. Hastings and Storer wards have child poverty rates of over 35% and 32% respectively with Lemyngton and Shelthorpe wards child poverty rates reaching over 25%. Does the Leader agree with me that child poverty continues to remain at an unacceptable level in Charnwood Borough particularly in its most impoverished areas and must now be properly addressed by the Local Authority?” In response the Lead Member for Communities and Health, Councillor Snartt, stated:

“Tackling factors that contribute to childhood poverty is a priority for the Council”. “Childhood poverty is about the resources available to children and families and their ability to make choices which help them get the best out of life. Reducing child poverty is about strengthening the protective factors such as family income, and how it’s spent, aspiration, good parenting and childcare, and the importance of good supportive social networks. It is also about dealing with the risk factors present in complex (or troubled) families, such as inadequate housing, poor diet, drug and alcohol misuse, domestic abuse, mental health problems, disability and lack of transport”. “The tackling of child poverty requires a multi disciplinary service approach and the development and implementation of integrated services”.



“The Council is a key partner in the Leicestershire Family Poverty Strategy, which tackles the challenges presented by long-term, multi generational poverty that all partners are being asked to address. The strategy proposes how we can build a families capacity to tackle poverty and exit poverty and bases these proposals on solutions already being designed and undertaken by partners by synchronising this effort to ensure delivery. The Family Poverty Strategy seeks to help partners be clear about their role in addressing this broad ranging issue and will be delivered in large part through the Supporting Families (Troubled Families) programme”. “The Council has recently affirmed its support for the Leicestershire Supporting Families (Troubled Families) Programme and approved both cash and in-kind contributions. The programme provides a single Leicestershire Family Model with integrated public and voluntary sector family focussed services”. “The Council provides many services which contribute to a child’s safety, development, enjoyment and happiness, such as playgrounds, parks, leisure centres, sport and active recreation opportunities, arts and cultural activities, affordable housing, community safety, neighbourhood management of priority areas and safeguarding of children, all of which contribute to keeping children from, and lifting children out of poverty”. “The Council in its Corporate Plan makes a commitment to improve the quality of life for people living in priority neighbourhoods. The Council undertakes proactive targeted work in these areas. Through the Neighbourhood Management team the Council works towards broadening community participation and work with local communities to identify local needs and work with residents to enable them to improve the quality of community life”. “In addition through Charnwood Neighbourhood Housing there is positive support for vulnerable tenants and particularly those in poverty through the tenancy support team. Roles include working with customers to maximise benefits, promote good money management and working with other agencies to maximise support”. “The Council works in partnership with Leicestershire County Council to deliver services for children and young people and their families through the Charnwood Partnership for Children and Families which is a theme sub group of Charnwood Together. This group sets the strategic direction for services for 0 to 19 year olds in the borough, one of the key priorities of the group is tackling child poverty. The group provides a multi agency approach to promote the early identification and delivery of services to families at risk of poverty and who are in poverty and have agreed a Children’s Centre Programme Delivery Plan and a 5 to 19 Delivery Plan”.



“The Children’s Centre Programme in the Borough commissions services to provide early intervention and preventative support to families with young children. There is a Children’s Centre that provides services to all of those areas identified above. Through the Children’s Centres parents and families receive support and advice on family and parenting, breast feeding, healthy eating, early reading, speech and language therapy, physical activity opportunities, debt and money advise, housing advise, training and employment”. “The 5 to 19 Delivery Plan focuses on providing support to the most vulnerable young people and covers areas such as teenage pregnancy, reducing young people not in Employment, Education and Training (NEET) and healthy lifestyles particularly in priority neighbourhoods and projects to improve the emotional health and well being of young people”. “The Council through its Strategic Partners Grants financially contributes to the work of the Citizen’s Advise Bureau which provides support and advise on debt and money management. The Council has also recently agreed to support the principle of providing a partner Credit Union, with restricted revenue funding, to enable the expansion of operations within the borough”. Councillor Carter, in making a statement, added that child poverty had risen to 42% in 2011 form 36% in 2010. It was therefore important that the Council did all it could to tackle child poverty in areas of deprivation in Loughborough Ashby, Hastings, Lemyngton and Shelthorpe. Ways the Council should do this was through initiatives to provide work for parents, supporting a credit union and through administration of Housing and Council tax benefit. In response, the Lead Member for Communities and Health, Councillor Snartt, stated that proposals were being developed for a Credit Union and initiatives were in place to support families. He added that despite it being difficult economic times, the overall trend of child poverty had not increased, although it remained important to tackle the issue.

30.12 HACKNEY AND PRIVATE HIRE LICENSING

Councillor Miah had given notice under Council Procedure Rule 5 (i) of the following question:

“Can the Leader explain why both Hackney and Private Hire drivers staged a protest in Loughborough earlier this month?” “Has he or any cabinet members had dialogue with any of the taxi drivers or taxi drivers association in the town regarding the issues



raised by them? If he has please can he disclose to council what those discussions were and any outcomes?” “Can he inform council how many Hackney and Private hire driver badges/licences have been issued in each of the previous three years including renewals and the total number of each type of badge/licences in issue for those years?” “Can he inform council how many taxi firms were licensed in the Borough for each of the past three years?” In response Lead Member for Housing and Regulatory Services, Councillor Jane Hunt, stated:

a) “No, I am unable to explain on behalf of the Hackney and

Private Hire drivers as to why they staged their protest on Tuesday 28th August 2012, as that is a matter of comment from those involved”.

b) “No, neither the Leader or any cabinet member has had

dialogue with any taxi drivers or taxi drivers association over this issue”.

c) “No, as per the previous response no discussions have been

held by the Leader or any cabinet member”. d)

Year 2009 2010 2011 Hackney Driver Licences issued during year (including renewals) – 3 year licence

103 48 62

Private Hire Driver Licences issued during year(Including renewals) – 3 year licence

136 97 122

Total number issued during each year

239 145 184

Number of Hackney Vehicle Licences. (Annual Licences)

166 168 153

Number of Private Hire Vehicle Licences (Annual Licences)

201 222 250

“Figures for the total number of drivers for each of the preceding years are not available. The current numbers as at 12th September 2012 are 144 Hackney drivers licensed and 253 Private Hire



drivers licensed, with approximately 20 pending applications and renewals”.

e)

Year 2009 2010 2011 Private Hire Operator Licences. (Hackney firms do not require a licence)

48 50 46

Councillor Miah made a statement in which he added that it was tough times economically and the Leader had promised to do everything he could to help local businesses and that this should include assisting Hackney and private hire drivers. Councillor Miah added that the licensing figures masked the numbers who had left the industry because it became difficult to make a living. The Council needed to assist with reviewing the cost of licensing and needed to meet with representatives of Hackney and private hire drivers to ascertain how it could help them.

In response, the Lead Member for Housing and Regulatory Services,

Councillor J. Hunt, stated that the Council was happy to meet with and talk to representatives of Hackney and private hire drivers. The Council was, however, unable to limit licenses for private hire and followed Department of Transport guidance concerning Hackney licenses. Councillor J. Hunt added that public safety was at the top of the Council’s priorities and she invited the opposition spokesperson to join her and the support member when they went out with officers late on a Friday and a Saturday to observe their work.

30.13 SHARING SERVICE CENTRE RESOURSCES

Councillor Ranson had given notice under Council Procedure Rule 5 (i) of the following question:

“I noticed from the Cabinet report that we are about to embark on offering service centre resources to Harborough Borough Council, can the Leader or his designated person tell me: 1) What income will Charnwood Borough Council derive from this? 2) What alterations to the building will be needed? 3) If the above is needed what will the cost be? 4) What is the payback period to the Council? 5) What made Harborough District Council choose Charnwood

Borough Council for this service?”



In response the Lead Member for Customer Services, Councillor Bokor, stated: 1) “The details of the partnership agreement are still being finalised

but Harborough are providing funding for both staff and IT systems to allow Charnwood to deliver the telephony for them from the existing contact centre at Southfields. Once the Admission Agreement is finalised a report will be submitted to Cabinet in October.

2) The existing Office Accommodation Strategy has identified some additional space for the amalgamation of the Customer Service and Contact Centre teams which was already planned tor 2012/13 therefore there are no alterations required directly attributable to this partnership.

3) As per the above there are no additional costs specific to this partnership as the already agreed Office Accommodation Strategy covers the required changes.

4) It is hoped that both councils will benefit from efficiencies and savings as the partnership develops. Therefore any costs included in the Office Accommodation Strategy will be absorbed within the first 12 months.

5) Harborough have undertaken a significant transformation programme and one fundamental factor is that they are to temporarily vacate their main Council Offices in Market Harborough for a significant period. This required a stream of the transformation programme to address the issue of telephony. They considered a number of options with a number of potential partners but having undertaken a number of site visits to Charnwood they were convinced that the Contact Centre had an operational blueprint which would deliver the quality and level service within the required timeframe. The Service Levels around Customer Excellence already achieved and recognised at Charnwood was a key factor in Harborough wishing to establish this partnership”.

30.14 PLANNING PERMISSIONS NOT EXECUTED.

Councillor M. Hunt had given notice under Council Procedure Rule 5 (i) of the following question: “Can the Leader inform Council how many extant and lapsed applications for housing of 10 or more units have received planning permission but not yet been completed (e.g. for final inspection by Building Control) and how many dwellings are estimated in that number?”



In response the Lead Member for Planning and Sustainability, Councillor Blain, stated: “As of 31 March 2012, 3 sites with planning permission had stalled during the monitoring year following their implementation. These sites have potential to provide 33 new dwellings. Planning permission for a further 15 sites amounting to 305 dwellings were recorded to have lapsed. A further site of 17 dwellings had lapsed but part of this site is now included in smaller planning permission of 7 dwellings that remains extant”. “The table below sets out the position as of 31 March 2012 along with commentary explaining the current position for each of the sites is available”.

Planning application Parish Address/

Location Details Status GREENFIELD /BROWNFIELD

Net Number of

Dwellings PUA /

NON PUA Comments

likely completions

on lapsed sites in next

5 years

P/04/2558/2 Anstey 2-10 Gladstone Street

Demolition of industrial buildings and erection of two and three storey building to form 13 two-bedroom flats. (Revised scheme P/04/1211/2 refers)

Lapsed BROWNFIELD 13 NON PUA

Likely to come forward

with a new application

as 4 terraced dwellings

rather than flats.

4

P/05/3778/2 Anstey

Between 1 & 3 Latimer Street and 10a and 16 Bradgate Road

Conversion of factory buildings and erection of new buildings to form 17 2-bedroom apartments. - Construction stalled

Stalled Part Built BROWNFIELD 12 NON PUA

Majority of site built but

12 flats remaining to

be built, development company in

receivership .



25

Council – 17th September 2012 Published – 24th September 2012



Net Number of

Dwellings PUA / NON

PUA Comments

likely completions


5 years

P/04/1232/2 Anstey Gynsills Court, Gynsills Lane

Demolition of 4 flats and erection of 16 flats (two, two-and-a-half and three-storey), 1 detached house and 3 terraced houses (two-storey) with associated parking.


Planning Application to extend

time limit on existing

permission withdrawn

2010

P/04/0233/2 Birstall

Birstall Garage, Loughborough Rd/ Collingwood

Demolition of buildings and erection of 11 one and two-bedroom flats (two & half storey).

Lapsed BROWNFIELD 11 PUA Still in use as

car repair garage. (Flats Development)



26




Net Number of

Dwellings PUA / NON

PUA Comments

likely completions


5 years

P/07/0459/2 Loughborough Cherry Tree Inn (PH) 2 Hume Street

Planning permission granted Dec 07. Demolition of public house and erection of four-storey building incorporating 16 flats with associated parking

Lapsed BROWNFIELD 16 NON PUA Flats Development

P/04/3689/2 Loughborough East Midlands Hotel

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 38 flats in a 4/5 storey block with underground car parking and erection of 5 workshops with 10 office units in a 3 storey block and car parking.




27




Net Number of

Dwellings PUA / NON

PUA Comments

likely completions


5 years

P/03/2984/2 Loughborough The Rectory, Steeple Row

Demolition of dwelling and site for erection of 11 dwellings.

Lapsed GREENFIELD 10 NON PUA

New application

now submitted in July for 10 dwellings 10

P/07/3550/2 Mountsorrel 2 Granite Way

Planning application for the Erection of 14 dwellings and associated garages and works permitted in March 2008.

Lapsed GREENFIELD 14 NON PUA Land still

advertised as for sale

P/08/1371/2 Rothley 21 Cossington Lane

Demolition of house and buildings and erection of 12 dwellings permitted in February 2008

Lapsed GREENFIELD 11 NON PUA Garden land Development



28




Net Number of

Dwellings PUA /

NON PUA Comments

likely completions


5 years

P/06/3380/2 Sileby 4a The Maltings

Conversion and extension of former maltings building to form 29 apartments and erection of building comprising 4 apartments.


New application

now submitted in August for 21

dwellings

21

P/07/3202/2 Sileby Factory, 36 Charles Street

Demolition of factory building and site for the erection of 11 dwelling houses and 12 flats, with associated access and parking.

Lapsed BROWNFIELD 23 NON PUA Factory still in use

P/05/2299/2 Syston 1142 Melton Road

Erection of three-storey building for 24 flats (14 x 2-bed and 10 x 1-bed)




29




Net Number of

Dwellings PUA /

NON PUA Comments

likely completions


5 years

P/09/0100/2 and

P/08/1234/2 Thurmaston

74 and 76 Humberstone Lane, Thurmaston, Leicester, LE4 8HF

Site for the erection of 9 houses, with access off Humberstone Lane, details of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved. (Revised Scheme P/08/2864/2 refers) and Site for the erection of 12 houses with access off Humberstone Lane.

Lapsed GREENFIELD 21 PUA Garden land Development



30




Net Number of

Dwellings PUA /

NON PUA Comments

likely completions


5 years

P/05/0382/2 Thurmaston

Auster Industrial Estate, Silverdale Drive

Demolition of industrial premises and erection of 58 residential units comprising seven. 3-bedroom 3-storey townhouses, eight 3-bedroom 2-storey houses, thirty seven 2-bedroom 3-storey apartments and six 1-bedroom 3-storey apartments. (Revised Scheme P/04/3138/2).

Lapsed BROWNFIELD 58 PUA

New application expected

shortly for 44 dwellings

44



31




Net Number of

Dwellings PUA /

NON PUA Comments

likely completions


5 years

P/06/3772/2 Thurmaston Garden Street

Erection of 18 (2xbedroom) apartments and associated parking and bin stores. (Reserved Matters P/05/3537/2 refers).

Stalled Part Built BROWNFIELD 9 PUA

Flats Development, part built, site

stalled but developer expects to complete

within 5 years

9

P/04/3649/2 Thurmaston 10 Hadrian Road

Demolition of industrial building and site for erection of 24 flats in two blocks (2/3 storeys high) with access and car parking.

Stalled Part Built BROWNFIELD 12 PUA

Flats Development, part built, site

stalled but developer expects to complete

within 5 years 12

P/07/3390/2 Thurmaston Land to rear of 55 Colby Drive

Site for the erection of 17 dwellings.

Lapsed BROWNFIELD 17 PUA

New permission granted in

May 2012 for 11 dwellings 11



32






Net Number of

Dwellings PUA /

NON PUA Comments

likely completions


5 years

P/07/2182/2 Thurmaston Rear 169-177 Colby Drive

Site for the erection of 16 dwellings and 1 bungalow. (Revised scheme to allow development to proceed in two phases P/07/0061/2 refers).

Lapsed and part now a small site

GREENFIELD 17 PUA

Outline permission granted on part of site

for 7 dwellings in

2010

7 TOTAL 355 TOTAL 118



30.15 CHANGES IN PLANNING REGULATIONS

Councillor M. Hunt had given notice under Council Procedure Rule 5 (i) of the following question:

“Does the Leader agree with the Prime Minister that we should get planning officers "off people's backs?” “Does with he agree with the relaxation on planning permission on properties by up to eight metres , particularly in areas of very dense housing or in areas of sensitive countryside?” “Does he agree that local decisions on obligations for including affordable housing in new developments should be waived by central government?” “Does he believe the planning system is the main constraint on house building in Charnwood?” In response the Lead Member for Planning and Sustainability, Councillor Blain, stated:

“Planning officers work collaboratively with a wide range of participants and stakeholders in determining applications for planning permission so as to ensure that decisions are balanced and made in the wider public interest. This will sometimes mean that difficult decisions have to be made and the nature of the activity means there will always be winners and losers at the end of the process”.

“The government announced a series of measures on 6 September 2012 to relax planning rules and boost the economy. The measures to relax rules on extensions for homes for a temporary period will be subject to consultation in due course. The Council will consider its response when the details of the proposals are known”. “Affordable housing provision through the planning system is already a locally derived decision based on an assessment of local housing needs. The government proposals provide a means for housing schemes that are currently unviable to be made viable by renegotiating the provision of affordable housing secured in existing legal agreements”. “The main constraint on housing development in Charnwood is the broader economic situation and a shortage of investment capital to fund housing development rather than the planning system itself”.



30.16 CORE STRATEGY CONSULTATION

Councillor S. Smith had given notice under Council Procedure Rule 5 (i) of the following question:

“In light of the latest delays to the core strategy; what assurance will the Leader give that Charnwood people will be consulted on the Core Strategy before the end of the council Year 2012/2013?”

In response the Lead Member for Planning and Sustainability, Councillor Blain, stated:

“The Core strategy has been subject to a number of significant consultation events in 2006, 2008 and 2012. Cabinet will receive a report on 27 September 2012 which will consider a forward programme for the Core Strategy including timescales for future consultation”. Councillor S. Smith, making a statement, added that the Core Strategy was the single most important planning issue and there had been insufficient information around the delays with the timetable. Councillor S. Smith added that it was important going forward that there was clear communication and ownership of the process. In response, the Lead Member for Planning and Sustainability, Councillor Blain, reinforced the importance of the Core Strategy adding that he hoped a finalised document would be ready by the end of the financial year, however, he could not rule out any unforeseen challenges.

30.17 OPTIONS FOR THE SUSTAINTABLE URBAN EXTENSIONS

Councillor S. Smith had given notice under Council Procedure Rule 5 (i) of the following question:

“Having offered several options for supplementary site development will the Leader offer separate options for the Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUEs)?” In response the Lead Member for Planning and Sustainability, Councillor Blain, stated:

“Options for sustainable urban extensions were consulted upon in 2008 and there will be a further opportunity for people to comment on SUE options when the pre-submission draft of the Core Strategy is published for consultation early in 2013.”



Councillor S. Smith asked a supplementary question as to whether there would be a consultation on two or more than two sustainable urban extensions.

In response, the Lead Member for Planning and Sustainability, Councillor Blain, stated that Cabinet was due to consider proposals for consultation on Thursday 27th September 2012, however, he was unable to predict what evidence would be gathered as part of any future consultation.

31. BUSINESS RESERVED TO COUNCIL

31.1 POLICE AND CRIME PANEL - PANEL ARRANGEMENTS AND

COMPOSITION

A report of the Cabinet, proposing arrangements for the operation and composition of the Police and Crime Panel to enable that Panel to be established, was submitted (item 7.1 on the agenda filed with these minutes). It was proposed by Councillor Snartt and seconded by Councillor Hampson and RESOLVED

1. that Leicestershire County Council continue to operate as the

host authority for the Police and Crime Panel; 2. that the Panel arrangements as required by the Police Reform

and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and the Terms of Reference of the Panel as set out in the Appendix to the joint report of the Strategic Director of Neighbourhoods and Community Wellbeing and the Head of Strategic Support, attached as an Annex, be approved;

3. that the Chief Executive be authorised to make such further

practical arrangements with regard to the procedures and protocols to be followed in relation to the Police and Crime Panel as may be appropriate to facilitate its operation;

4. that as a matter of principle, that co-option of members from

constituent authorities should be used to secure the balanced appointment objectives in relation to political balance and representation of the area covered by Leicestershire police;

5. that subject to ongoing review, as provided by the Panel

arrangements, the Police and Crime Panel should consider co-option of three additional members from Leicester City Council to achieve the balanced appointment objectives;



6. that Councillor Slater be nominated as Charnwood Borough

Council’s representative on the Panel for the remainder of the 2012/13 civic year; and

7. that Delegated Authority be given to the Head of Strategic

Support, in consultation with the Leader, to nominate a substitute Borough Council representative.

Reasons

1. To confirm host arrangements. 2. To establish the Police and Crime Panel and to advise the

Home Office of actions taken, as required by the Police and Crime Panels (Nominations, Appointments and Notifications) Regulations 2012.

3. To enable further arrangements in preparation for the

establishment of the Panel. 4&5. To enable the balanced appointment objectives to be met. 6. To appoint a representative from Charnwood Borough Council

to the Panel. 7. To ensure that the Borough Council would be represented on

the Panel in the absence of the Council’s representative.

32. CALL IN REFERENCES There were no call in references from Scrutiny.

33. MINUTE REFERENCES

There were no minute references.

34. URGENT EXECUTIVE DECISIONS EXEMPT FROM CALL-IN

There had been no urgent executive decisions exempt from call-in since the Council meeting on 25th June 2012.

35. MOTIONS ON NOTICE

Following submission by Councillor Miah of his motion on notice entitled “Glenfield Hospital” in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15; Councillor Miah wished his motion to be determined by the Council at this meeting, therefore, he proposed the following procedural motion, which was seconded by Councillor Slater and it was



RESOLVED that in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15.6, Council agrees that it be convenient and conducive to the despatch of business, that the motion may be debated in accordance with the rules of debate and dealt with at this meeting. Reason To consider the motion “Glenfield Hospital” at this meeting, rather than refer it to the next Council meeting.

35.1 GLENFIELD HOSPITAL

A Motion on Notice was submitted by Councillor Miah in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15 (item 11.1 on the agenda filed with these minutes).

It was proposed by Councillor Miah and seconded by Councillor Slater and

RESOLVED that this Council calls upon the Secretary of State for Health, the Right Honourable Jeremy Hunt MP, to reconsider and reverse the proposed closure of the Children’s Cardiac Surgery service at the EMCHC at Glenfield Hospital, Leicester.

Reasons

1. The ECMO unit at Glenfield Hospital has a world-wide reputation as a centre of excellence and this facility for children should not be lost; the staff in the ECMO unit may not be willing to relocate to another venue and the cost of training new staff would be prohibitive and the loss of expertise would be indefensible.

2. The consultation result favoured option A which would retain

services in Leicester, however, option B was chosen which would result in Leicester’s closure, despite Leicester scoring the highest for availability, access, travel, deliverability, sustainability and affordability.

3. The transfer of a sick child to Birmingham for surgery and back

to Leicester for after care could be traumatic for both an extremely sick child and their family at an emotionally difficult time.

4. The current service was successful and well established with

experienced staff, many of whom were unlikely to transfer to Birmingham for personal reasons; resulting in an initial period of reduced care.



36. APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES

Council considered proposals to make changes to committee membership for the current council year (2012/13) (item 12 on the agenda). It was proposed by Councillor Slater and seconded by Councillor Hampson and RESOLVED that Councillor K. Jones and Councillor Parton be appointed to the Performance Scrutiny Panel and Councillor K. Jones and Councillor Parton be appointed to the Policy Scrutiny Group. Reason To enable newly elected Councillors to serve on committees and contribute to the scrutiny process. It was proposed by Councillor Miah and seconded by Councillor Sharp and RESOLVED that Councillor Williams be appointed to Audit Committee to replace Councillor Miah and that Councillor Miah be appointed to Overview Scrutiny Group to replace Councillor Williams. Reason To ensure that membership of committees matched availability.