Agenda and minutes

A Chairman will be elected for the period up to June 2015.

It was proposed by Mr. Pendleton and seconded by Cllr. Russell that Mr. J. T. Orson JP CC be elected Chairman of the Panel for the period up to June 2015.

Mr. J. T. Orson JP CC - in the Chair

A Vice-Chairman will be elected for the period up to June 2015.

It was proposed by Mr. Orson and seconded by Mr. Rhodes that Mr. T. J. Pendleton CC be elected Vice-Chairman of the Panel for the period up to June 2015.

The Chairman read out the following statement:

“We may well be in for a lengthy meeting this afternoon, but before we get started, I do wish to make a few further remarks.

The papers for this meeting were circulated on Monday 2 June.  To meet the legal requirements, papers should have been sent out on the previous Friday afternoon, 30 May.  I know that the secretariat has already apologised for this to members of the panel and I repeat that apology from the chair.  However, the secretariat does need papers provided to it in good time to meet these deadlines and on this occasion the papers arrived too late on Friday afternoon from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for them to be copied and despatched.  I must ask those who work in that office to ensure that papers are provided to Sam Weston and his colleagues in Democratic Services in good time and in accordance with the timetable which they set for the production of the paperwork in order to meet the legal requirements.

At the last meeting on 17 March, we debated at some length the development of a Question Procedure for the Panel.  I had intended that a further paper would come today on that issue to the Panel for information, but in light of the length of the agenda I have agreed that the procedure will now simply be circulated to Panel members by the secretariat.  Consultation has taken place with the Chief Executive of the Commissioner and steps will now be taken to publicise this procedure in an appropriate manner.

I have also asked that this Panel receive a report from the Police and Crime Commissioner about the proposals for the future of the Public Relations function at the police.  I understand that discussions are ongoing and I therefore agreed not to take this item on today’s agenda; I do expect the Panel to return to this matter at its next meeting.

I have asked that the Commissioner reconsider my request for there to be a briefing to members of the Panel by the Chief Constable to assist the Panel in undertaking its work.  I am awaiting a response from the Commissioner and will advise Panel members of that as soon as I have received it.

Finally, if the meeting is as lengthy as I suspect, I plan to have a comfort break at around 4.00pm.”

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 March were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

There were no urgent items for consideration.

The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to declare any interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting.

Cllr. M. Sood declared a personal interest in respect of all items on the agenda as a member of the Police’s Independent Advisory Panel and as the Chairman of the Leicester Council of Faiths.

A copy of the Judicial Review high court judgement is attached for the consideration of members of the Panel.

The Panel considered a report concerning a the PCC’s decision to take Blaby District Council to a Judicial Review in respect of the phasing of Section 106 funding for the proposed development known as “New Lubbesthorpe” in the district of Blaby. A copy of the High Court’s judgement of the matter, dated 27 May 2014, is field with these minutes.

The Chairman invited the PCC to deliver a statement setting out his views on the matter. Accordingly, the PCC delivered the following statement:

“I would like to make it clear before I start that I intend to focus on facts which can be evidenced. It is not my intention to incite media headlines or engage in petty political posturing. I have however observed several comments which appear to be little more than malicious in nature, factually incorrect and misleading to the public and I have no wish to add to this already unedifying spectacle. A vitriolic debate, conducted via the media, between different members of the public sector family is, I believe, wholly unnecessary and highly inappropriate; I would expect that members of this panel would subscribe to a similar ethos.

Let me now talk about the actual events leading up to the decision to seek a

Judicial Review regarding the Lubbesthorpe development – and, like I said, this sequence of events is fully evidenced. For the record, my only concern at all times, has been the preservation of community safety - an important quality of life – indeed, safety of life – issue that I personally do not believe should be diluted or compromised in any way to the benefit of those who stand to gain most from such developments.

I am sure that many of you, particularly those members of this panel who sat on the former Police Authority, will recall that the Lubbesthorpe proposals first came to light in late 2009, from which time until early 2011 there was regular Police involvement regarding the impact of the development and the necessary mitigations.

Then, on 28th April 2011, shortly after the submission of the Planning application, Leicestershire Police made a formal request for a financial contribution – a position fully supported by the Police Authority. Former members will no doubt recall that, at the Police Authority meeting held on 24 January 2012, they unanimously approved the following:

The realignment of the Architectural Liaison Officer to focus on secure by design and planning advice, managing demand against reducing resources. And that…

The ‘Policing Contributions from Development Schemes Policy’ [was to] remain in force to allow claims against major developments where a significant policing impact is foreseen.

At the subsequent meeting, held on 28 March 2012, Police Authority members considered a report from the Chief Constable covering Developer Contributions. The full report is available, but of particular pertinence at that meeting was that the Authority - unanimously once again - resolved to:

‘Confirm that developer contributions will continue to be actively pursued

in accordance with the Police Authority Policy updated at the 24th

January meeting’;

Quite clearly then, the Police Authority appreciated the risks ahead and was in favour of pursuing timely developer contributions. Indeed, these extracts are an important part of its legacy, a position with which I totally concur. Of note, this issue was included in the Police Authority Legacy Report, presented to me at the meeting of 20 November 2012, a mere 5 days after I was elected to Office.

However, on November 1st 2012, Blaby Planning Committee granted planning permission for the Lubbesthorpe development, subject to the execution of a legal agreement including (and I quote)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

RESOLVED:

That the item be deferred for consideration at a meeting to be scheduled in July.

RESOLVED:

That the item be deferred for consideration at a meeting to be scheduled in July.

RESOLVED:

That the item be deferred for consideration at a meeting to be scheduled in July.

The next meeting of the Panel is scheduled to take place on 29 September at 2.00pm.

It was NOTED that the next meeting of the Panel would be held on a date to be confirmed in July to enable the Commissioner to report back on the issues raised in the debate on Lubbesthorpe/S106 (Minute 67 refers).