Venue: Sparkenhoe Committee Room, County Hall, Glenfield
Contact: Mr. S. J. Weston (Tel: 0116 305 6226) Email: sam.weston@leics.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
In Attendance: Mr. J. T. Orson JP CC (for Minute 10) |
|
Appointment of Deputy Chairman. Minutes: RESOLVED: That Dr. R. K. A. Feltham be appointed Deputy Chairman for the period ending with the Annual Meeting of the County Council in 2010. |
|
Minutes of the meeting held on 15 April 2009. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on |
|
Question Time. Minutes: Mr Andre Wheeler, a resident in Barwell, asked the Chairman the following question under Standing Order 35:- “1. Why has the Steering Committee of George
Ward Community Centre project not sought charitable status? 2. Will any member of the Steering Committee
be paid an allowance when the Centre is operational? 3. As there appears to be no finalised
business plan and no details of income, could I be advised of how many local Barwell groups have expressed an interest in using the
Centre? 4.
Will any short-fall in funding be met by the
County Council now and in the future, or will the County Council expect the Barwell Parish tax payers to pay? 5.
Why have the County Council decided to start
this project without a robust Financial Business Plan in place as the Leader of
the Council indicated that this would not happen in a letter to me dated of The Chairman replied as follows:- “1. The charity commission is in the process
of establishing the new status of Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO),
which should remove the need for joint registration as a charity (for
charitable purposes) and as a company limited by guarantee (to protect trustees
financially). The Committee has deliberately held back in order to try and
become a CIO as this will save both money and time. However the date for the
introduction of CIO status keeps slipping and therefore the Committee has
agreed that they will seek charitable status (in whatever form is available and
appropriate) 3 months prior to completion of the building subject to; legal
advice, financial advice and board approval. 2.
No. The only payments made to members of the
Steering Committee will cover expenses incurred on behalf of the project.
Staff, including Centre Managers, will be recruited via an open and independent
recruitment process. The only other situation in which Steering Committee
members could be paid an “allowance” would be in the exceptional circumstance
of a Committee member providing holiday cover for a paid member of staff. 3. A draft Business Plan has now been produced for the Community Centre which sets out anticipated income and expenditure. The income includes usage income figures based on figures from similar facilities in the County and on the needs analysis conducted by the Committee last year. These estimates are conservative - initial income is based on a utilisation little in excess of 35%, rising by 10% year on year for years 2, 3 and 4. The maximum occupancy level accepted for this type of building is 70%. Although it is hoped that some local groups will use the Community Facility as a base for their meetings/activities, it has become clear that much of the income will be derived from service providers using the building to deliver essential services to the community, for example adult learning, job search support, training and services to support young people. The Committee has been conscious
from the beginning of the need to minimise the impact on existing facilities in
Barwell by attracting new users to the facility and
not taking them away from existing buildings such as the Village and Church
Halls. There are a number of individuals and groups who have expressed an
interest in setting up new groups and classes. 4. The County Council has invested considerable time and money in making sure that the Centre will become sustainable after a reasonable period of time. In projects such as this the County Council would usually be working closely with the local Parish Council to look at ways of maximising the income ... view the full minutes text for item 3. |
|
Questions asked by members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5). Minutes: The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5). |
|
To advise of any other items which the Chairman has decided to take as urgent elsewhere on the agenda. Minutes: There were no urgent items for consideration. |
|
Declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda. Minutes: The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to declare any interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting. The following members declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in respect of the item entitled ‘County Council Final End of Year performance Report for 2008/09’ as members of the district/borough councils that were involved in the partnership activities summarised in the report (minute 11 refers): Mr. A. D. Bailey CC Mr. R. Blunt CC Mr. G. A. Boulter CC Mrs. R. Camamile CC Mr. S. J. Galton CC Mr. Max Hunt CC Mr. P. G. Lewis CC Mrs. P. Posnett CC Mrs. J. Richards CC Mr. R. J. Shepherd CC The same members also declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in respect of the item entitled ‘Operation of the new Overview and Scrutiny arrangements’ as some of the proposed Review Panel topics would involve district/borough council input (minute 13 refers). |
|
Declarations of the Party Whip in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16. Minutes: There were no declarations of the party whip. |
|
Presentation of Petitions under Standing Order 36. Minutes: The Chief Executive reported that no petitions had been
received under Standing Order 36. |
|
Minutes: The Commission considered a report of the Director of
Highways, Transportation and Waste Management concerning a petition that had
been presented to the former Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its
meeting on With the agreement of the Chairman, Mr. J. T. Orson JP CC – who had presented the petition to the Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee – spoke on the matter. Mr. Orson explained that there were several locations where people in his electoral division had wished to erect a blind-spot mirror near the junction of concealed entrance/exits on particularly dangerous stretches of rural road, despite it being County Council policy since 1975 not to provide mirrors on the highway. Mr. Orson felt that the County Council should consider reviewing its policy in the interests of safety, as there was a need for blind-spot mirrors in some rural areas. Arising from discussion, the following principal points were noted: ·
County Council officers advised that there was
no evidence to suggest that mirrors had a positive effect on road safety; ·
It was important that drivers had clear and
understandable signage on the highway; · County Council policy was consistent with Government advice and approval would have to be obtained from the Department for Transport for installation of a mirror. As the Council’s policy on this matter was now somewhat dated, Members felt that the issue would benefit from further investigation and it was proposed that this work may fall within the remit of the Review Panel on Road Safety Measures that was being proposed in report ‘E1’ (minute 13 refers). It was moved by Mr. Shepherd, seconded by Mr. Lewis and carried “That the matter of the use of blind-spot mirrors be considered within the context of a wider review of road safety measures.” RESOLVED: That the matter of the use of blind-spot mirrors be considered within the context of a wider review of road safety measures. |
|
County Council final end of year performance report for 2008/2009. Additional documents: Minutes: The Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive concerning the
contents of the Annual Performance Report for 2008/09 covering the final
Comprehensive Performance Assessment position, Medium Term Corporate Strategy
and Local Area Agreement 1 (LAA) performance and progress on LAA2, along with
relevant new National Performance Indicators. A copy of the report, marked ‘C’ is filed with these minutes. The Commission also received a power point presentation on
the key issues within the Report. A copy of the slides used in the presentation
is also filed with these minutes. The Commission was
advised that benchmarking statistics contained in the Annual Performance Report
were unaudited and therefore only provisional at this stage. The view was
expressed that the overall picture was very encouraging and the Authority
appeared likely to be the highest performing area in the country, despite
having one of the lowest net budgeted spends. In regard to LAA1
partnership reward targets, it was clarified that the authority had so far achieved
£4.4 million of a potential £8 million reward grant. The Government’s targets
had been particularly stretching. RESOLVED (a)
That
the end year 2008/09 performance position summarised in the Report be
noted; (b)
That the statement on page 20 of the Annual
Performance Report, which states that ‘the average % of debt written off as
compared to annual revenue over the last five years was ‘28%’ be clarified
further. (c) That PricewaterhouseCoopers be invited to present their findings on comparative and benchmarking data to a future meeting of the Budget and Performance Monitoring Panel. |
|
Medium Term Delivery Plan (MTDP). Minutes: The Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive concerning the current position with regard to the Medium Term Delivery Plan. A copy of the report, marked ‘D’, is filed with these minutes. The Chief Executive reported that, due to the current financial downturn, it was not currently possible to provide a meaningful report on the Council’s delivery priorities until the Medium Term Financial Strategy had been agreed. Members indicated that, at the appropriate time, consideration be given to inviting the Cabinet Lead Member for Resources to explain how the County Council proposes to deal with the likely implications of its budget on the current economic downturn and increased public borrowing. RESOLVED: That the current position be noted. |
|
Operation of the new Overview and Scrutiny arrangements. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive concerning the outcome of discussions with the Scrutiny Commissioners concerning the operation of the new scrutiny arrangements. A copy of the report and supplementary report, marked ‘E’ and ‘E1’ respectively, is filed with these minutes. Arising from the discussion, the following principal points
were noted: ·
Panels that the Adult Social Care and Health Overview
and Scrutiny Committee or the Children and Young People’s Service Overview and
Scrutiny Committee wished to establish would be reported in the first instance
to the Commissioners and then to the Commission. The Children and Young People’s
Service Overview and Scrutiny Committee Chairman and Spokesmen had indicated that
they would wish to set up a Review Panel to look at sex and relationship education
and impact on teenage pregnancy rates; ·
Binge drinking was a current public concern and
it was felt that it would be beneficial to carry out a ‘light touch’ review on
this issue in order to establish whether it would be worthy of a full review; · Panels would be chaired by Deputy Commissioners; Scrutiny Commission ·
The Commission’s role would be one of overview
and it would decide where to direct resources within scrutiny; ·
It was hoped that by having less items on the
agenda the Commission would be able to dedicate more time to high priority
issues; ·
Members stressed the need for the Commission to
make clear recommendations to the Cabinet in future in order that the Cabinet
be better equipped to comment, rather than merely ‘note’ them; · It would be important for members of the Commission to receive regular feedback on meetings between the Commissioners. RESOLVED: (a)
That the draft job descriptions for
Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners and Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of
Overview and Scrutiny Committees be approved; (b)
That the proposed arrangements for the Budget
and Performance Monitoring Panel be noted; (c)
That in regard to Scrutiny Review Panels: (i)
The changes proposed for conducting Scrutiny
Reviews as outlined in Appendix D to the report be noted; (ii)
It be agreed that the following be established: (iii) It
be agreed that the following ‘Light Touch’ reviews be established: (iv)
A letter be circulated to all non-Executive
members seeking expressions of interest to serve on the agreed Panels; (v)
Commissioners be
requested to discuss with the Director of Highways, Transportation and Waste
Management the timing and scope for a future review of the procurement of waste
treatment facilities. (d) That the indicative scrutiny work programme as outlined in Appendix E to the report be agreed. |
|
Date of next meeting. The next meeting of the Scrutiny Commission will take place
on Minutes: RESOLVED: It was noted that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on Wednesday 28 October 2009 at 2.00pm. |