Agenda and minutes

Major S Southworth MM

 

The Chairman reported with sadness that former County Councillor Major Stanley Southworth had died on 21 February, 2008 aged 86 years.  Major Southworth had been elected to the County Council in 1989 and served until 2001, representing the former Breedon electoral division.

 

He had served on a wide variety of committees during his period of membership including the Policy and Resources Committee, and had acted as Conservative Spokesman of the Public Protection and General Purposes Committee and Pension Fund Management Board.

 

In 1996 Major Southworth had become the first Chairman of the new Combined Fire Authority and had served in that capacity until 2001 when he had retired from local politics.  It was recalled that “The Major”, as he had been affectionately known, had been a great champion of the Fire and Rescue Service and he had taken great pride in his association with the Leicestershire Brigade, which he had regarded with some justification as second to none.

 

Mr R K Dickens

 

The Chairman also reported with sadness the death recently of former County Councillor Ron Dickens aged 79 years.  Mr Dickens had been elected to the County Council in 1981 and had served until 1985 representing the former Hinckley No 4 (Castle) Electoral Division.

 

Members joined the Chairman in standing in silent tribute to the memory of Major Stanley Southworth and Mr Ron Dickens.

 

Community Heritage Initiative

 

The Chairman reported that the Council's Community Heritage Initiative had recently been highly commended, at a ceremony in London, by judges representing the Local Government Chronicle and Health Service Journal.

 

The Chairman felt sure that members would wish him to thank and congratulate all volunteers and officers concerned, in respect of the initiative which was one of the top two of its type in the country.

 

Miss P Clayfield CC

 

Members joined the Chairman in passing on their best wishes to Miss Pam Clayfield CC who it was reported was about to undergo further medical treatment.

 

Visitors

 

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting all visitors and guests of members.

 

It was moved by the Chairman, seconded by Mr A M Kershaw and carried:-

 

“That the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 20 February 2008 copies of which have been circulated to members, be taken as read, confirmed and signed.”

 

 

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

 

The following declarations were made:-

 

Member                                       Minute No.                   Interest

 

Mr P C Osborne                          145(A)                           Personal and Prejudicial

Dr O’Callaghan                           145(B)                           Personal Non Prejudicial

Mr Orson                                         “                                   Personal Non Prejudicial

Mr Roffey                                         “                                   Personal Non Prejudicial

 

(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.

The Leader presented a position statement on the following matters:

 

Beacon Award

Travel Vouchers for Young People

Concessionary Travel

High Speed Rail Plans

Vox Pop.

 

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Commission presented a position statement on the following matters:

 

Scrutiny Reference Group Meeting

Review of Scrutiny

Performance Management

Scrutiny Spokespersons

Accountability

Press

Scrutiny Review Panels

Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programmes.

 

Copies of the Position Statements are filed with these minutes.

 

It was moved by Mr Parsons, seconded by Mr Rushton and carried:-

 

“That the revised Code of Corporate Governance, as referred to in Section A of the report of the Cabinet, be approved.”

 

It was moved by Mr Parsons and seconded by Mr Rushton:-

 

“(a)      That the report of the Independent Panel on Members’ Allowances, as set out in Appendix A to the report of the Constitution Committee, be received and that the recommendations contained therein be approved;

 

(b)       That the present scheme of allowances be revoked on 31 March 2008 and that the scheme of allowances set out in Appendix B to the report of the Constitution Committee be adopted with effect from 1 April 2008.”

 

The motion was put and carried.

 

a)         That this Council notes:

 

(i)         the current proposal for an 'Eco Town' in Leicestershire;

 

(ii)        the comments made by the Chief Executive in his letter to the Government on the proposed eco town in Leicestershire including:

 

"To summarise, it is our view that the Government's aspirations for housing growth can be accommodated in Leicestershire, but the proposed Eco-town at Pennbury is not the right location for this growth.  The evidence points to better locations in the county, in particular Coalville, and we would welcome the opportunity for these to be examined further through the Regional Planning and LDF process."

 

b)         That this Council condemns planning behind the scenes and calls for a full debate across the County on the need for homes to fight climate change and satisfy demand of local families;

 

c)         That this Council therefore:

 

(i)         requests a detailed explanation as to why Coalville was considered a better location for an eco town;

 

(ii)        rejects any proposal for an Eco Town in Coalville;

 

d)         That this Council welcomes any plans to develop the National Forest Line through North West Leicestershire.

 

 

Mr. P. C. Osborne, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest, left the meeting during the consideration of this item.

 

It was moved by Mr John Legrys and seconded by Mr Stanley:-

 

“(a)      That this Council notes:

 

(i)         the current proposal for an 'Eco Town' in Leicestershire;

 

(ii)        the comments made by the Chief Executive in his letter to the Government on the proposed eco town in Leicestershire including:

 

"To summarise, it is our view that the Government's aspirations for housing growth can be accommodated in Leicestershire, but the proposed Eco-town at Pennbury is not the right location for this growth.  The evidence points to better locations in the county, in particular Coalville, and we would welcome the opportunity for these to be examined further through the Regional Planning and LDF process."

 

(b)       That this Council condemns planning behind the scenes and calls for a full debate across the County on the need for homes to fight climate change and satisfy demand of local families;

 

(c)        That this Council therefore:

 

(i)         requests a detailed explanation as to why Coalville was considered a better location for an Eco Town;

 

(ii)        rejects any proposal for an Eco Town in Coalville;

 

(d)       That this Council welcomes any plans to develop the National Forest Line through North West Leicestershire.”

 

An amendment was moved by Mr Galton and seconded by Dr Feltham:-

 

“That the motion be amended to read as follows:-

 

‘(a)      That the Council notes that

 

(i)         no proposal has been made by the County Council for an Eco-town development in Coalville;

 

(ii)        the suggestion that additional development could be accommodated in the area of the Leicester-Burton Corridor was made by the Independent Panel, which conducted the Examination in Public of the Regional Plan, not the County Council;

 

(iii)       the Chief Executive’s letter clearly states that the original submission by the Co-op for a “sustainable urban extension” was turned down because the development did not meet the policy criteria;

 

(iv)       the Eco-town scheme is driven by the desire of the Government to build 3 million new homes;

 

(v)        Eco-towns are in addition to the number of dwellings proposed in Regional Plans and Development Frameworks;

 

(b)       That accordingly, this Council:

 

                        1.         welcomes the Panel’s recommendation of pursuing the development of the National Forest Line;

 

                        2.         raises serious concerns that the Eco-town scheme could by-pass local planning procedures;

 

                        3.         continues to raise concerns about an Eco-town near Stoughton because of its negative transport, environmental and regeneration impact.’ ”

 

The amendment was put and carried, 39 members voting for the amendment and 11 against.

 

The substantive motion was put and carried.

 

(a)       That this Council notes

 

(i)         the discussion at the Council meeting on 21 March 2007 and the agreement reached on the guiding principles for the development of catchment areas for the Melton Schools;

 

(ii)        the reduction in admissions number for Long Field and John Ferneley to 160 from September 2009;

 

(iii)       that applications for places in secondary schools for September 2008 currently run at 195 for John Ferneley, 154 for Long Field and 41 for King Edward VII;

 

(iv)       the current proposals for a single open catchment area for the three secondary schools in the town;

 

(v)        the concerns regarding these proposals expressed by parents and/or governors of schools in Melton including King Edward VII, Sherard, Asfordby Hill, John Ferneley, St Francis, Asfordby Captains Close and others;

 

(b)       That this Council requests

 

(i)         the Cabinet when considering the proposals on catchment areas at their meeting on 8 April to look at all issues regarding catchment areas, admissions criteria and admissions number so that as many parents as possible get the school of first choice for their child;

 

(ii)        The Cabinet to ensure that sufficient funding is available for the schools during the transition period.

 

It was moved by Dr O’Callaghan and seconded by Mr Bown:-

 

“(a)      That this Council notes

 

(i)         the discussion at the Council meeting on 21 March 2007 and the agreement reached on the guiding principles for the development of catchment areas for the Melton Schools;

 

(ii)        the reduction in admissions number for Long Field and John Ferneley to 160 from September 2009;

 

(iii)       that applications for places in secondary schools for September 2008 currently run at 195 for John Ferneley, 154 for Long Field and 41 for King Edward VII;

 

(iv)       the current proposals for a single open catchment area for the three secondary schools in the town;

 

(v)        the concerns regarding these proposals expressed by parents and/or governors of schools in Melton including King Edward VII, Sherard, Asfordby Hill, John Ferneley, St Francis, Asfordby Captains Close and others;

 

(b)       That this Council requests

 

(i)         the Cabinet when considering the proposals on catchment areas at its meeting on 8 April to look at all issues regarding catchment areas, admissions criteria and admissions number so that as many parents as possible get the school of first choice for their child;

 

(ii)        The Cabinet to ensure that sufficient funding is available for the schools during the transition period.”

 

An amendment was be moved by Mr Osborne and seconded by Mr Ould:-

 

“1.        That paragraphs (a) (iv) and (v) of the motion be amended to read as follows:-

 

‘(iv)      the current proposal for a single open catchment area for secondary schools in the town, which was proposed by the Implementation Board comprising representatives of all secondary schools in the area and subsequently supported by the Children and Young People's Overview and Scrutiny Committee as the best option for managing the transition, achieving balanced pupil intakes and supporting the longer term development of the schools' partnership;

 

(v)        the views on this proposal expressed by parents and governors of all schools in Melton, which will be taken properly into account by the Cabinet in its consideration of the matter;’

 

2.         That the following be added at the end of paragraph (a) of the motion:-

 

‘(vi)      the commitment already given by the Cabinet to ensure that sufficient funding is made available to schools during the transitional period;

 

(vii)      that the County Council has been recognised as one of the top performing authorities nationally for the allocation of school places, having met 97.9% of first choice parental preferences for autumn 2008 admissions.’

 

3.         That paragraph (b) of the motion be amended to read as follows:-

 

‘(b)      That the Council requests the Cabinet to ensure that in taking this matter forward it continues to work closely in partnership with parents, schools and other stakeholders so that any misinformed comment does not put at risk this once in a lifetime opportunity of improving education provision and choice in the area, the £45 million proposed investment in Melton itself, or the ability of the County Council to work with Government to improve the quality of secondary education elsewhere in the County.’ ”

 

The amendment was put and carried, 30 members voting for the amendment and 11 against.

 

The substantive motion was put and carried as follows:-

 

“(a)      That this Council notes

 

(i)         the discussion at the Council meeting on 21 March 2007 and the agreement reached on the guiding principles for the development of catchment areas for the Melton Schools;

 

(ii)        the reduction in admissions number for Long Field and John Ferneley to 160 from September 2009;

 

(iii)       that applications for places in secondary schools  ...  view the full minutes text for item 145b