Issue - meetings

(A)       Mr Stanley asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:

"1.       In reply to a question put at the meeting of the Council on 5 December 2007 I was advised that 2008/09 will be the first year that the Dedicated School Grant has included a specific funding allocation targeted at deprivation.  Could the Leader please indicate what criteria is being used to ensure that the grant is received by the schools that warrant it?

2.         Could he provide me with a list of schools which will receive these funds and the amounts involved?"

Mr Ould replied as follows:

“1.        Whilst identified as a separate allocation within the Dedicated Schools Grant, the Pockets of Deprivation funding is not ringfenced and there is no requirement for this funding to be delegated to schools.

In accordance with the wishes of the Schools (Funding) Forum, this funding is distributed to mainstream schools and Phase 1 Children’s Centres. It is distributed to schools in accordance with the Index of Multiple Deprivation Score for each individual school using the same methodology as used within the social deprivation element of the Special Educational Needs Factor. This method was endorsed by the Schools (Funding) Forum.

The multiple index of deprivation is used to rank schools in order of most deprivation based upon the home addresses of its pupils. The most deprived third receive a weighting of 4 for each pupil, the next third a weighting of 2 and the bottom third a weighting of 1 using the January pupil numbers.

2.         The school level allocations are shown in the table attached to these minutes (marked Table 1).”

(B)       Mr Sprason asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:

"Could the Leader outline what he understands to be the implications for Leicestershire people of the recent statement on the future of motorway widening by the Secretary of State for Transport?"

Mr Rushton replied as follows:

“The Secretary of State for Transport, Ruth Kelly, announced a wide ranging review of the Government’s approach to tackling congestion and capacity issues on the motorway network.  The Government had planned to widen the M1 in Leicestershire, from Junction 21 to 24, to dual four lanes; this is now under review and it is possible that the Government will propose adding the required capacity to the M1 by use of Active Traffic Management, as has been trialled successfully on the M42 east of Birmingham.

The Highways Agency has stated that it still has to deal with problems with Junctions 21 and 24 and that Active Traffic Management is not the tool to address such problems.  We are given to understand that the Junction 24 improvements will still include a Kegworth bypass, wholly funded by the Highways Agency, but a programme has not been announced.  We still expect consultation on revised proposals for Junction 21 later this year.

The County Council welcomes the consideration of Active Traffic Management, as this has the potential to increase capacity on the motorway without environmentally intrusive and damaging widening schemes, with long periods of disruption caused by construction works.”

Mr Sprason asked the following supplementary question:

“Could I please ask the Lead Member for clarification that, if Active Traffic Management is now the Government’s preferred option, will he ensure that the junction work at Junction 22, Markfield and the promised noise reducing measures, will still be part of that scheme?”

Mr Rushton replied as follows:

“I will certainly take up that point on Mr Sprason’s behalf.  Although, if you look at the stretch of motorway between the M69 and the Kegworth Bypass, in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 141