Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 5th September 2007 were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

 

Mr Abbott, an elector registered in the County, asked the Chairman the following questions under Standing Order 35:-

 

1.                  Have the police been formally consulted concerning the impact on police resources both locally (the proposed site) and county-wide re the new powers the police apparently have?

2.                  If they were consulted, who was consulted? 

3.                  What action will be taken if Travellers refuse to pay fees for access to the Transit Site?  Will the Council require “cash-up-front”?

4.                  How much will the Travellers be charged for access to the site?  Is this per person or per caravan or something else?  How has this charge been calculated?  How much is expected to be generated through fees in the financial year?

5.                  Is the long-term aim that the Transit Site becomes self-financing?

6.                  If an illegal encampment that is larger than the available plots on the Transit Site is “moved on”, how will Police/Council determine who gets the Transit Site places?  What happens to the others?

7.                  What action will be taken should Travellers intentionally damage, foul or otherwise disrespect the provided transit site?  How does the Council propose that the offenders are identified and prosecuted?

8.                  What action will the Council/Police take to ensure that the Transit Site does not spread on to adjacent land?

9.                  Can the Council confirm that a Traveller Site will be capped at the proposed size and not allowed to grow over time?

10.             What hours will the site warden work?  Will the warden live on-site?  What training and support will the warden receive to ensure the Council’s duty of care to its employees is fulfilled?

11.             What will the warden be paid?  Will they receive any enhancements to their salary? (for example anti-social hours).

12.             What action will be taken should the warden be abused or otherwise treated disrespectfully?

13.             What action would be taken if crime rates in the area of a Traveller Site rise above normal levels

14.             Would Neighbourhood Policing staff (both Officers and PCSO’s) be expected to go on to the Traveller Site during their normal “beat”?  Will they provide a visible and reassuring policing presence to the Travellers?

15.             Will the objections of NWLDC be considered when arriving at a decision on the placement of the Traveller Site?

16.             Do the views of the local community carry sufficient weight to force a change of heart?

17.             Will the planning permission process be an open and transparent one despite the Council effectively being judge and jury?

18.             Should covenants be lifted to facilitate the placement of a Transit Site, will the same flexibility be available to local residents wishing to lift/alter covenants on their own property?

19.             What impact would a Transit Site at Snibston have on the attraction for visitors to the local St Mary’s Church?

20.             If, as the FAQ suggests, property values would not be adversely affected by the placement of a Transit Site, will the Council give an undertaking to compensate home/business owners should values take an unexpected tumble?

21.             Will the authorities (Council & Police) take steps to tackle both anti-social behaviour and dangerous/nuisance animals with precisely the same effort as seen in the rest of the local community?

22.             Will CCTV be installed at the Transit Site?

23.             Should damage, theft or dirt be an issue at the Traveller Site, how promptly would the Council act to put things right?

24.             Should crime occur that is traced to a resident on the Traveller Site, can the Police enter the site and apprehend the individual(s) without a warrant?

25.             Will the records of Travellers entering the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

Mr John Legrys asked the following questions of the Chairman under Standing Order 7(3):-

 

A.        General County Wide Policy

 

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Section 62A-E give the police powers to remove travellers trespassing, providing a suitable pitch was available on a local authority managed site in the same LA area.  The Housing Act 2004 Section 225 ten years later required councils to carry out an assessment of need for traveller sites and, if a shortfall was found, to prepare a strategy in respect of the meeting of such needs and to identify land for new sites. 

 

1.                  What was the result of the assessment for the County of Leicestershire?

2.                  When was this assessment carried out?

3.                  How many sites/pitches are needed in total across the County? 

4.                  In which districts are they needed?

5.                  How many sites/pitches are needed in each of these districts?

6.                  Is it the intention eventually to have a least one transit site per district?

 

In 2004 a Joint Officer Working Party of the County Council, all District Councils, Leicester City Council and Rutland was formed to develop proposals for the development of suitable sites.  The paper to Cabinet on 16th January 2007, paragraph 13, mentioned that sites have been only been identified by the County Council and the City Council.

 

7.                  Where were the County Sites?

 

8.                  What has happened to these sites?

 

The following have been given as criteria for the selection of suitable transit sites

 

·                    The areas of greatest concentration of unauthorised encampments

·                    Traveller routes

·                    Location of doctors' surgeries and other amenities

·                    Near to established Traveller sites

·                    Good but safe access to major roads

·                    Access to services (water, electricity)

·                    Sites with as low as possible impact on local communities

·                    Accessible to most of the relevant District

 

9.                  What is the origin of each of these criteria?

10.             Are there any other important criteria which have should be included in this list?

 

B.        With respect to a proposed site in the District of NW Leicestershire

 

1.                  How many pitches are being sought for the proposed site?

2.                  How many caravans will this include?

3.                  What is the total population estimated for this site?

4.                  How many adults in total will this include?

5.                  Has there been any estimate of the number of children this will include?

 

6.                  Can you list the sites that were initially surveyed for the transit site in NW Leics? 

 

7.                  Was land in the ownership of British Coal and other large landowners considered?

 

8.                  Were British Coal and the NFU approached regarding sites?

 

9.                  What factors led the Council's property department to recommend the Lockington/Hemington sites?

10.             Why was it decided not to proceed with these sites?

 

11.             Mention was made of feedback from a consultation meeting with North West Leicestershire Parish Councils in March 2007.  Can you list who was invited to this meeting?

 

12.             Were invitations sent to the Parish Councils of Ravenstone, Swannington and Coleorton?

 

13.             If so who were they addressed to?

 

C.        With respect to the current consideration of the three sites in NW Leicestershire

 

1.                  Were any soundings taken before these 3 sites were selected?  If so what?

 

2.                  Have surveys (soil tests etc) been made of any of the proposed sites?  If so, where and when?

 

3.                  Is the property dept working on other sites in NW Leics?

4.                  Why wasn't Scrutiny consulted on the non site specific bid?

 

D.        With respect to the consultation process

 

1.                  Who is being consulted on these three sites (list organisations please)?

 

2.                  Are the police, doctors, schools, PCT  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

The Chairman advised the Commission that he had agreed to consider the following issue as a matter of urgent business:

 

-           Leicestershire Anti Social Behaviour Strategy

 

The following members declared personal non prejudicial interest as members of District Councils in relation to any issues arising from the consideration of the reports on the Sustainable Community Strategy and Local Area Agreement and Leicestershire Anti Social Behaviour Strategy

 

 - Messrs Galton, Snartt, Hart, Legrys and Shepherd.

 

There were no declarations of the party whip.

 

The Chief Executive reported that no petitions had been received under Standing Order 36.

 

The Commission considered a report of the Director of Corporate Resources concerning the decision to submit a non-site specific application to the East Midlands Regional Assembly (EMRA) for a grant to develop a transit site for Gypsies and other Travellers and to consult on three possible sites.  A copy of the report, marked ‘E’, is filed with these minutes.

 

Mr John Legrys attended the meeting as a local member.  He acknowledged the need for the Council to find a suitable site but expressed concerns about the suitability of the proposed sites.  He also expressed concern about the consultation process which he considered to have been somewhat limited as it had not included some parish councils and Travellers groups who were affected by the proposals.

 

In response to questions, the Director of Corporate Resources advised the Commission as follows:

 

(i)                 the original non-site specific bid had not succeeded.  The Council had been advised of the decision by GOEM in June 2007.  The announcement of a second round of funding had been made at a late stage.  The deadline for the current round was 30^th November 2007 and the Cabinet would be considering the outcome of the consultation on 23^rd November.  The outcome of the bid would be known by April 2008.  This tight timetable was one of the main reasons for a shorter than normal consultation period.

 

(ii)               Since 2004, the County Council had been in discussion with district councils with a view to identifying possible transit sites.  To date not one site had been identified by the district councils.  It was acknowledged that further work needed to be undertaken at district council level.

 

(iii)             The criteria for selection of sites were based on Government guidance and a further issue had been included relating to the “impact on local communities”.

 

(iv)              Discussions had recently commenced with British Coal about potential sites but to date no response had been received.

 

(v)                The Cabinet had, following representations, decided not to proceed with the proposed site at Lockington and Hemington.

 

(vi)              A considerable number of well-argued responses had been received as a consequence of the consultation exercise.

 

In the ensuing discussions the following comments were made by members:

 

·                    there was a clear need to identify appropriate transit sites if illegal encampments were to be dealt with;

·                    district councils needed to be urged to identify appropriate sites in preparing their local development frameworks;

·                    the issue of the effect on local properties resulting from the identification of possible transit sites needed to be considered;

·                    the lessons learnt from the current consultation process needed to be noted and incorporated in any future consultations.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the information now provided be noted and the views now expressed be drawn to the attention of the Cabinet.

 

The Commission considered a joint report of the Chief Executive and Director of Corporate Resources concerning issues on both the revenue budget and key performance indicators where performance is below target. A copy of the report, marked ‘A’, is filed with these minutes.

 

In response to questions, the Commission was advised as follows:-

 

• The Customer Services Centre for Highways, Transportation and Waste would be going live at the end of November. This would be Phase 1 and the intention is to roll out the programme over time to other County Council services starting with Community Services.
• The Equality Standards target was particularly challenging and the Equalities Board would be considering a plan setting out what actions were needed to achieve the standard.
• An action plan had been developed to address issues arising from the MORI analysis of the public satisfaction survey and this would be brought to the next meeting of the Commission.

 

The Director of Corporate Resources advised the Commission that the Local Government Finance Settlement would be announced on 6^th December. Given the complexity of the likely changes it might be difficult to produce an analysis of the effect of the settlement in the usual time.

 

RESOLVED:

 

a)                 That the good progress being made in relation to the targets and commitments be noted and that the officers be commended on the new format of reporting financial and performance data;

 

b)                 That the report be drawn to the attention of the Chairmen and Spokesmen of all Scrutiny Committees inviting them to raise issues as appropriate with the relevant Chief Officers.

 

The Commission considered a report of the Director of Corporate Resources concerning the second review of the 2007/08 Capital Programme. A copy of the report, marked ‘B’, is filed with these minutes.

 

In response to questions, the Director of Corporate Resources advised some of that the contribution to the Loughborough Sports Park could be made in the next financial year. The project was being managed by Loughborough University.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the current position on the projected spend, estimated at 97% on the capital programme, be noted and welcomed.

 

The Commission considered the reports of the Chief Executive which set out:

 

i)                    how the ‘This is Leicestershire ‘ evidence base related to the work of the Commission and contributed to the development of outcomes for inclusion in the Leicestershire Sustainable Community Strategy and Local Area Agreement;

ii)                  key performance information in the context of changes to the local government performance framework together with the early views of the Government Office for the East Midlands (GOEM) as to the key priorities for Leicestershire.

 

Copies of the reports, marked ‘C’ and ‘D’ respectively, are filed with these minutes.

 

The Commission also considered a supplementary report of the Chief Executive setting out the views of the Scrutiny Committees on the Sustainable Community Strategy, a copy which is also filed with these minutes.

 

In the ensuing discussion members endorsed the comments made by the scrutiny committees and, in particular, the comment of the Children and Young People’s Service Scrutiny Committee that priority should be given to the development of facilities for children and young people. Members were of the view that this would not only allow for a number of the key concerns emerging at Community Forum meetings to be addressed but would also help deliver some of the key targets likely to be included in the LAA. In addition members asked that:

 

i)                    consideration be given to strengthening the role of Community Forums by delegating funding to these bodies so that they could address the identified needs of their area;

ii)                  the Strategy should not focus solely on areas and people deemed to be deprived but that it also should seek to address issues of social inclusion and cohesion across the County;

iii)                consideration should be given to the mapping of the needs of social groups across the County which might highlight non geographic deprivation.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the comments now made, together with those of the Scrutiny Committees, be submitted to the Cabinet for consideration.

 

The Commission considered this matter, the Chairman having decided it was of an urgent nature, in view of the need to obtain approval of the Anti Social Behaviour Strategy so that the County Council and its partners could begin to implement the Action Plan arising from the Strategy as soon as possible.

 

The Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive setting out the draft Anti Social Behaviour Strategy and seeking the comments of the Scrutiny Commission thereon. A copy of the report is filed with these minutes.

 

In response to questions, members were advised as follows:

 

i)                    the Leader of the Council was in discussion with the Chief Constable and others on the possibility of funding the roll out of 101 telephone line to all areas of the County. These discussions had not addressed the recent speculation that the Home Office might withdraw funding for the scheme;

ii)                  discussions on a common methodology for identifying and recording anti social behaviour were nearing completion and the revised recording arrangements would be in place soon.

 

RESOLVED:

That the Cabinet be advised that the Commission welcomes and supports the draft Anti Social Behaviour Strategy.

 

The Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive concerning the decision of the Cabinet to approve the extension of the County Council’s use of Oracle e-Business Suite and the preferred method of procurement for future consultancy support. The decision of the Cabinet had been ‘called – in’ on the basis that it involved significant expenditure, unassessed risk and the centralisation of functions and corporate practice. A copy of the report, marked ‘F’, is filed with these minutes. The report was not for publication by virtue of paragraphs 3 and 10 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

The Commission also considered the following supplementary papers:

 

• Staff transactions Business Case
• Business Case for Procurement.

 

Copies of these supplementary papers, marked 1 and 2 respectively, are also filed with these minutes. These reports were also not for publication by virtue of paragraphs 3 and 10 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

In response to questions, the Director of Corporate Resources replied as follows:

 

• the total cost of the system would be approximately £5.1 million with a potential annual saving of £2.1 million. In addition, there would be the additional benefit of better quality information to inform service delivery;
• the e-Business Suite was a modular system, the first phase costing £2.5 million. It was therefore possible to stop further investment if deemed appropriate;
• Oracle was a well established system and the County Council had looked at its implementation in other authorities and learnt lessons;
• the detailed business cases on shared services and e-procurement had not been considered in detail by the Cabinet. The all party member Corporate Change Management Board had considered and endorsed the overall programme.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the decision of the Cabinet be noted and that no further action be taken.

 

 

 

 

 

 

10.00 am - 12.00 pm                                                                         CHAIRMAN

07 November 2007

 

 

                                                                                                           APPENDIX

 

Distribution List Name:            Travellers meeting in North West Leicestershire

 

Members:              

 

Appleby Magna                                           parishcouncil@applebymagna.org.uk

Ashby Town Council                                   colin.gay@btconnect.com

Auzra Flynn, NW Leics DC                        auzra.flynn@nwleicestershire.gov.uk

Belton                                                           belton.clerk@ntlworld.com

Bob Scott, Leics Constabulary               robert.scott@leicestershire.pnn.

                                                                      police.uk

Breedon on the Hill                                     jo.allen2107@virgin.net

Brian Roberts                                              bdroberts@leics.gov.uk

Castle Donington                                        clerk@cdpc.org.uk

Charley                                                         bri-val.duncombe@ntlworld.com

Christiane Athey                                          CAthey@leics.gov.uk

Christine Fisher, NW Leics. DC             christine.fisher@nwleicestershire.

                                                                      gov.uk

Coleorton                                                     sara_cowin@hotmail.com

Dr. R. K. A. Feltham                                    KFeltham@leics.gov.uk

Ellistown & Battleflat                                   ellistownparish@yahoo.co.uk

Heather ?                                               stewart@stewartshepherd.

                                                                      wanadoo.co.uk

Ibstock                                                          ibstockparishcouncil@fsmail.net

Isley cum Langley                                        smiliesam@aol.com

Kegworth                                                      lesleypendleton@aol.com

Long Whatton                                              longwhatdisepc@hotmail.com

Measham                                                     dawn@meashamparish.co.uk

Mr. C. A. Stanley                                         CStanley@leics.gov.uk

Mr. J. G. Coxon                                           JCoxon@leics.gov.uk

Mr. J. K. C. Legrys                                      JKCLegrys@leics.gov.uk

Mr. N. J. Rushton                                         NRushton@leics.gov.uk

Mr. P. A. Hyde                                             PHyde@leics.gov.uk

Mr. S. D. Sheahan                                      SSheahan@leics.gov.uk

Mrs. L. A. S. Pendleton                              LPendleton@leics.gov.uk

Oakthorpe & Donisthorpe                          oakdonpc@hotmail.com

Packington                                                   clerk@packingtonpc.org.uk

Ravenstone with Snibston                     parishclerk@ravenstonewith

                                                                      snibstonparishcouncil.org.uk

Snarestone                                                  rdhassall@fsmail.net

Steve Siddons                                             SSiddons@leics.gov.uk

Stretton en le Field                                      jazfeeney@aol.com

Swannington                                                bri-val.duncombe@ntlworld.com