Agenda and minutes

Mr Ron Jenkins

 

The Chairman reported the death of former County Councillor Ron Jenkins who died on 11^th October 2014.

 

Ron had served on the County Council from 1997 to 2005 and represented the Syston Electoral Division.

 

He had mainly served on the Development Control and Regulatory Board for which he was Conservative Spokesman during 2004/5, and the Health and Social Care Scrutiny Committee.  Prior to the establishment of the Cabinet/Scrutiny model, he had been a member of the Education Committee.

 

The Chairman invited the Council to stand in silent tribute to the memory of Mr Ron Jenkins.

 

UK Youth Parliament

 

The Chairman reported with pleasure that Rina Roy from Charnwood had been selected as one of the 60 members of the UK Youth Parliament to take part in a celebration to mark the 750^th anniversary of De Montfort’s Parliament.

 

The event was to be held on 22^nd January at Westminster Abbey Chapter House followed by a special Evensong.  The invitation had come on behalf of The Rt Hon John Bercow MP, Speaker of the House of Commons and The Rt Hon Baroness D’Souza, the Lord Speaker.

 

This was great achievement by Rina and also a tribute to the excellent work of the Children and Families Service.

 

Visitors

 

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting all visitors and guests of members and anyone who was viewing the meeting via the webcast.

 

It was moved by the Chairman, seconded by Mr Snartt and carried:-

 

“That the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 24^th September 2014, 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.

 

All members of the Council who were also members of a District Council declared a personal interest in the Leicestershire County Council Planning Obligations Policy (minute 33(b) refers)

 

(A)   Mrs Richards asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-

 

“1.    Would the Leader please advise the Council regarding the following statements made by County Councillors David Bill and Michael Mullaney in a Liberal Democrat Focus leaflet delivered in Hinckley regarding the future of the Mount Grace School Site:-

 

(a)        that specific questions have been put to the County Council regarding a guarantee that all of the playing fields will be retained?

 

(b)        that the County Council has been approached over potential parking congestion if this move takes place?

 

(c)        that County Councillors David Bill and Michael Mullaney have approached Mr Ould CC directly on this matter in his capacity as Cabinet Lead Member for Children and Families?

 

2.     What is your view regarding the content of the Liberal Democrat Focus leaflet by two County Councillors which would appear to me to be misleading and what impact might this have on the proposed move of Hollier’s Walk School to Mount Grace site?”

 

Mr Ould replied as follows:-

 

“1.    (a)    I am not aware that the County Council has been asked any questions.  Mr Bill raised the following question with the Director of Children and Family Services in late September in the context of a broader question regarding an emerging proposal for a move of the Holliers Walk Primary to the Mount Grace site:-

 

‘In view of the extensive playing field attached to the school, is there a guarantee that all of the field will be retained? As one of the local County Councillors I trust that I will be informed well in advance of any move to dispose of all or part of this land and that the usual consultation process will be followed.’

 

The answer provided was as follows:-

 

‘The potential move to Mount Grace for Holliers Walk is not dependent on the sale of any playing field land on the site, hence there are currently no plans to do this (and Sport England would strongly oppose such a move). Should the position change for any reason, then I will ensure you are alerted beforehand.’

 

(b)    Within the correspondence relating to the above, Mr Bill also raised the following matter:-

 

‘In view of the fact that all primary schools attract parking and congestion problems, what arrangements will be put in hand to address this problem? Parents’ evenings and other events already cause parking problems in the Butt Lane area. Is this situation now to be replicated every morning and afternoon during school terms?'

 

The answer provided stated:-

 

‘In terms of potential parking problems, particularly on Butt Lane, planning conditions for the primary school would require an agreed travel plan to be in place on opening. This will place an emphasis on sustainable travel solutions, based on the current good network of footpaths around the school, and available cycle routes, so as to discourage the use of cars. The travel plan will be agreed with the Environment and Transport Department nearer to the time of the planning application. Primary schools do not normally provide discrete drop off areas for pupils, but this would be considered if deemed necessary by the planners.’

 

(c)    I have not been approached directly by either Mr Bill or Mr Mullaney about this matter.

 

2.     The content of the leaflet is, in part, factually incorrect.  Given the sensitivity of the debate surrounding Mount Grace I would have expected that the facts would be checked prior to publication.

 

        In this context, I am most concerned that, given that Mr Bill in particular has pressed for transparency and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

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

 

"That the changes to Standing Orders (Meeting Procedure Rules), as set out in Appendix A to the report of the Constitution Committee, be approved."

 

The Leader presented a position statement on the following matters:-

 

·       Midlands Connect;

·       East Leicestershire LEADER Bid;

·       European Structural and Investment Fund;

·       County Councils’ Network Annual Conference;

·       Meetings with Leicestershire MPs and Emma McClarkin MEP;

·       Chairman’s Dinner for Her Majesty’s Services;

·       Working Dog Sculpture unveiling.

 

The Deputy Leader presented a position statement on the following matters:-

 

·       Meeting with MPs;

·       Medium Term Financial Strategy;

·       Transformation Board.

 

Copies of the position statements are filed with these minutes.

 

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

 

“That the Leicestershire County Council Annual Performance Report 2014, as referred to in Section A of the report of the Cabinet, be approved.”

 

It was moved by Mr Blunt, seconded by Mr Hunt and carried:-

 

“That the revised Leicestershire Planning Obligations Policy, as referred to in Section B of the report to the Cabinet, be approved and that the Chief Executive and County Solicitor, following consultation with the Cabinet Lead Member for Planning Matters, be authorised to make any necessary future revisions to the Leicestershire Planning Obligations Policy to ensure that it is up-to-date and relevant provided that these do not constitute material changes to the Policy.”

 

It was moved by Mr Snartt, seconded by Mr Shepherd, and carried:-

 

“That the proposed amendments to the Contract Procedure Rules, as set out in Appendix A to the report of the Corporate Governance Committee, be approved.”

 

(a)            Working Together to Manage Budget Reductions – Mr Max Hunt CC

 

“1.      That this Council severely regrets that:-

 

(a)  Since the Coalition Government came into power local services have been disproportionately penalised with a real terms cut in local government funding of 37% with the recent National Audit Office report on local government funding reserving its severest criticism for central government;

 

(b)  after four years of Coalition Government, local government social care services have been forced to take a bigger hit than any other government services and as social care funding constitutes a large proportion of local authority funding,  the funding situation for the County Council will become untenable within the next two years;

 

(c)  the approach taken by the present administration has failed to understand the significant contribution that the voluntary sector could make to supporting local communities, groups and carers in dealing with cuts being made in services;

 

(d)  the failure of the Administration to engage in any meaningful way with other political groups on the challenges facing the Council and how these might be tackled.

 

2.       That this Council also notes that many of those in low paid jobs, include a large number of people working in the care sector with which the Council contracts, deserve better pay and conditions.

 

3.       That this Council therefore calls upon the Administration to:

 

(a)  work with Councillors of all parties and other County Councils to restore a respectable level of funding to social care services supporting young, disabled and elderly vulnerable people;

 

(b)  challenge local MPs and Parliamentary Candidates to oppose further cuts to social care in the next Government and support an integrated health and care service;

 

(c)  review its current approach to working with the voluntary and community sector and engage constructively with them to help deliver the Council’s preventative agenda.

 

(d)  show its support for the lowest paid social care workers by giving a commitment to introduce the living wage within the Council and making it a requirement for organisations with whom the Council contracts.”

 

(b)            Imposition of Bus and Cycle Lanes - Leicester North West Major Transport Scheme – Mr L Yates CC

 

“That this Council rejects the Coalition Government’s and Leicester City Mayor’s obsessive agenda in imposing cycle and bus lanes which will only create more congestion and that the Leicester North West Major Transport project be roundly rejected.”

 

It was moved by Mr Hunt, and seconded by Ms Newton:-

 

“1.      That this Council severely regrets that:-

 

            (a)    since the Coalition Government came into power local services have been disproportionately penalised with a real terms cut in local government funding of 37% with the recent National Audit Office report on local government funding reserving its severest criticism for central government;

 

(b)    after four years of Coalition Government, local government social care services have been forced to take a bigger hit than any other government services and as social care funding constitutes a large proportion of local authority funding,  the funding situation for the County Council will become untenable within the next two years;

 

            (c)    the approach taken by the present administration has failed to understand the significant contribution that the voluntary sector could make to supporting local communities, groups and carers in dealing with cuts being made in services;

 

            (d)    the failure of the Administration to engage in any meaningful way with other political groups on the challenges facing the Council and how these might be tackled.

 

2.         That this Council also notes that many of those in low paid jobs, including a large number of people working in the care sector with which the Council contracts, deserve better pay and conditions.

 

3.         That this Council therefore calls upon the Administration to:-

 

            (a)    work with Councillors of all parties and other County Councils to restore a respectable level of funding to social care services supporting young, disabled and elderly vulnerable people;

 

       (b)    challenge local MPs and Parliamentary Candidates to oppose further cuts to social care in the next Government and support an integrated health and care service;

 

       (c)    review its current approach to working with the voluntary and community sector and engage constructively with them to help deliver the Council’s preventative agenda;

 

       (d)    show its support for the lowest paid social care workers by giving a commitment to introduce the living wage within the Council and making it a requirement for organisations with whom the Council contracts.”

 

An amendment was moved by Mr Galton, and seconded by Mr Bill:-

 

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

 

“1.      That this Council notes that:-

 

(a)      Following the economic crash in 2008, all parties accepted the need to reduce the budget deficit, all went into the 2010 election promising spending reductions to achieve this and all will be promising further cuts to continue reducing the deficit beyond 2015;

 

(b)      During this parliament, local services have been cut heavily with a real terms cut in local government funding of 37% according to the recent National Audit Office report on local government funding;

 

(c)      Local taxes such as Council Tax and Business Rates, have not been designed to meet the pressures of social care, the budget of which has risen each year to meet increased demand from vulnerable people in our society;

 

(d)      Therefore, cuts to local government can be seen as cuts to social care by stealth, and could undermine attempts to reduce demand on NHS through better social care;

 

(e)      A large number of people working in the care sector are on low wages and zero hour contracts and deserve better pay and conditions.

 

2.       That this Council therefore resolves to:-

 

(a)      Work together, with cross party talks, to find common ground on how local government should be funded so that central government can be lobbied from a united Council position;

 

(b)      Work with local MPs and Parliamentary Candidates to protect social care from further cuts in the next Parliament and support an integrated health and social care budget;

 

(c)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35a

It was moved by Mr Yates, and seconded by Mr Sprason:-

 

“That this Council rejects the Coalition Government’s and Leicester City Mayor’s obsessive agenda in imposing cycle and bus lanes which will only create more congestion and that the Leicester North West Major Transport project be roundly rejected.”

 

The motion was not carried, 2 members voting for the motion and 48 against.