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. D.
Jennings CC (For Minute 80) Mr. W.
Liquorish CC (For Minute 80) Mr. D. A.
Sprason CC (For Minute 81) |
|
Appointment of Deputy Chairman. Minutes: RESOLVED: That Dr. R.
K. A. Feltham CC be appointed Deputy Chairman for the
period ending with the Annual Meeting of the County Council in 2011. |
|
Minutes: The minutes
of the meeting held on |
|
Question Time. Minutes: Ms. Judi Peatfield a local resident in Markfield asked the Chairman
the following questions under Standing Order 35:- “1. If Leicestershire County
Council were to adopt a minimum path width of greater
than one metre within its walk to school guidelines, would the somewhat unique
route from Markfield and Field Head to 2. Do you consider this to be an unreasonable request and could you explain exactly why the County Council chose to not include this within its guidelines or assessment initially?” The
Chairman replied as follows:- “1. The
route has not been assessed in these terms and, given that it is over a mile in
length, its width will vary at certain points. The route has only been assessed
with regard to whether it would be available for a child to walk to school,
accompanied by a responsible adult, which the Council believes it is. 2. If
it is considered on examination that a route is not suitable, it will fail the
test. There are a number of factors that
are taken into account and a fixed criterion of width does not necessarily
indicate whether or not a path is available for use. These factors include: ·
Is the
route walkable? ·
Would a
parent reasonably be able to accompany a child along the route? ·
Are
there any crossing points, and if so, are they clear and with adequate
visibility? Some authorities allow for routes along country roads with no footpath,
though the Council has not adopted this stance. Reports indicate that people do
walk the route, so it is clearly used.” Ms. Peatfield asked the following
supplementary question in respect of the replies to question 1 and 2: “Will the impending assessment result in our children having access to
free transport to The Chairman replied that he
would ensure that Ms. Peatfield was provided with a
written response to her supplementary question. |
|
Questions asked by members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5). Minutes: The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been asked under Standing
Order 7(3) and 7(5).
|
|
Urgent Items. Minutes: There were
no urgent items for consideration. |
|
Declarations of interest. 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 each declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in respect of Items 11 and 12 as members of district/borough councils (Minutes 83 and 84 refer): Mr. A. D. Bailey CC
|
|
Declarations of the Party Whip. Minutes: There were
no declarations of the party whip. |
|
A petition
signed by 326 residents is to be presented by Mr. D. Jennings CC and Mr. W. Liquorish
CC as local members. Minutes: A petition
submitted by Zac Kramer as lead petitioner signed by 326 local residents
requesting the provision of a footpath between the villages of Cosby and
Broughton Astley along Cosby Lane and Broughton Lane was presented to the
Commission by Mr. D. Jennings CC and Mr. W. Liquorish CC, as local members. A briefing
note of the Director of Environment and Transport summarising the situation
relating to the petition was considered by the Commission. A copy of this
report, marked ‘B’, is filed with these minutes. RESOLVED: That a full
report on the matter be submitted to the Commission within the next six months. |
|
A petition
is to be presented by Mr. D. A. Sprason CC, as local member for Markfield, Desford
and Thornton and lead petitioner Mr. Joel Evans, signed by 1822 local residents. Minutes: A petition
submitted by Joel Evans, a local resident of Markfield, signed by 1822 local
residents was presented to the Commission by Mr. Evans and Mr. D. A. Sprason CC
– local member for Markfield, Desford and Thornton in the following terms: “We the undersigned oppose the County Council’s
£14,000 cut in the school transport budget for the school bus from
Markfield/Field head to With the consent of the Chairman, Mr. D. A. Sprason addressed the
Commission and made the following points in support of the petition:
With the consent of the Chairman, Mr. Evans addressed the Commission and
made the following points:
Mr. Evans summed up his address by stating that the Action Group had the
full support of parish councils and it was their view that the matter needed to
be urgently reviewed in order that parents could be informed of the situation
prior to the commencement of the next school term in September. Mr. Bailey pointed out that Mr. Sprason was a member of the Cabinet which
had recommended to full Council a cut of £14,000 in the budget for home to school
transport and that at the full Council meeting opposition parties had agreed that
this would have an effect on many children in the Authority’s area. Mr. Sprason
responded by stating that he was in agreement with the Council’s £14,000
saving, but it was his and the Action Group’s belief that the policy criteria
for assessing walking routes to school should be revised to include a minimum
path width, thus ensuring the safety of school children. Concern was expressed in regard to adopting a minimum path width, as it
was felt that this would likely lead to a number of routes being re-examined at
a high potential cost to the Authority and at a time of significant financial
difficulty. The Commission then considered a briefing note of the Director of Environment and Transport a copy of which, marked ‘C’, is filed ... view the full minutes text for item 81. |
|
Minutes: The
Commission considered a report of the Director of Corporate Resources
concerning an update in respect of the position regarding the acquisition by
the County Council of the site currently occupied by the Measham Youth Club and
their search for replacement premises in Measham. A copy of the report, marked
‘D’, is filed with these minutes. With the
consent of the Chairman, Dr. Martin Vaughan addressed the Commission and stated
that the Youth Club was happy that an improved offer for the premises had been
discussed with the County Council. He felt that with the improved offer, the
Youth Club would be in a position to afford to purchase the new premises it had
identified in Measham, though they would not have adequate funds to modify the
premises to suit their needs. The
Director reported that it was his belief that the improved offer from the
County Council would enable the Youth Club to continue to exist at improved
premises with some remaining funding for moderation works. The Youth Club was
required to do a further assessment on costing the necessary repair work for
the new premises. More discussions were also required to come to a conclusion
on a finalised offer to the Youth Club. RESOLVED: That the Director of Corporate Resources and the Youth Club be
encouraged to continue negotiations in an effort to seek an outcome that is
satisfactory to both parties. |
|
Scrutiny Review Panel Report on Flooding. Additional documents: Minutes: The
Commission considered the final report and recommendations of the Scrutiny
Review Panel on Flooding. A copy of the report, marked ‘E’, is filed with these
minutes. The Chairman
of the Panel, Mrs. R. Page CC, introduced the report and commended its recommendations
which would assist the Council in its role as lead body in respect of managing
flood risk on a local level. Mrs. Page stressed that the report would need to
be a ‘living’ document, as more detailed guidance was expected in the near
future in regard to the extent of the Council’s role as lead body and the
associated financial expectations. Arising from
discussion of the report, the following points were noted: ·
It
was pleasing that external organisations such as Severn Trent and the Environment
Agency had fully engaged with the Review process and this had hopefully set the
tone for a successful partnership on the Flood Risk Management Board; ·
Roadside
gullies varied greatly in size and capacity. Going forward, the Council would
be required to consider emptying gullies on a case by case basis until more was
known about their capacity; ·
The
Panel would need to reconvene when the detailed guidance referred to above had
emerged. RESOLVED: (a)
That
the overall findings of the Panel be supported and that the conclusions and
recommendations referred to in Appendix 1 of the report be referred to the
Cabinet for consideration; (b)
That
the Chairman of the Panel be requested to liaise with the appropriate Cabinet
Lead Member with a view to monitoring progress made against the recommendations
and to report to the Scrutiny Commissioners and/or the Commission, as
appropriate; (c)
That
the Panel reconvene at a time when the funding requirements of the Council become
clearer via the emerging Government guidance. |
|
Scrutiny Review Panel Report on the Procurement of Waste Treatment Facilities. Minutes: The
Commission considered the final report and recommendations of the Scrutiny
Review Panel on the Procurement of Waste Treatment Facilities. A copy of the
report, marked ‘F’, is filed with these minutes. The Chairman
of the Panel, Dr. R. K. A. Feltham CC, introduced the report and commended its
recommendations which would assist the Council in its assessment of proposals
received from bidders against the project evaluation criteria previously agreed
by the Council. Arising from
discussion of the report, the following points were noted: ·
Following further competitive dialogue, the decision
about which company would become the preferred bidder, subject to final Cabinet
approval, would be governed by the highest
scoring company/consortia which met the County Council’s previously agreed
criteria, together with whichever technology it had proposed; ·
It was the Authority’s intention to call for
final tenders by late 2010 with planning consent and construction being
completed in time for an operational start in April 2015. RESOLVED: (a)
That
the findings in the report be noted together with the Panel’s view that it is
broadly satisfied that the procedures and mechanisms in place throughout this
part of the procurement process were robust and adhered strictly to the
criteria laid down for assessing potential bids. (b)
That
the report be referred to the Cabinet for its consideration. |
|
Annual Report - Overview and Scrutiny. Additional documents:
Minutes: The
Commission considered a report of the Scrutiny Commissioners concerning the
annual reports of Overview and Scrutiny bodies. A copy of the report, marked
‘G’, is filed with these minutes. The Chairman
reported that he felt that the first year of operation under the new scrutiny
structure had been successful. Members
felt that paragraph 2 of the Appendix 2 to the report required amendment to exclude
reference to the Chairman. RESOLVED: That the
Annual Reports of Overview and Scrutiny be approved for submission to the
County Council subject to amendment in the light of the comments now made. |
|
Key Outcomes and Proposed Action Points Arising from the Workshop on 11 May 2010. Additional documents: Minutes: The
Commission considered a report of the Scrutiny Commissioners concerning the key
issues arising from the Overview and Scrutiny Workshop held on Arising
from discussion of the outcomes, the following points were noted: ·
The
Chairman had written to the Leader regarding his involvement in a future
meeting of the Commission by way of a question and answer session. The Leader
had yet to formally respond, but he had expressed his wish that questions be
raised with him in advance of any meeting in order that he or an appropriate
Lead Member was given time to consider a response; ·
It
was questioned whether the call-in procedure should, as in the County Council’s
case, only apply to key decisions; ·
In
regard to reports, a desire was expressed for a section outlining ‘options
looked at’. It was hoped that this would provide greater perspective on which
to come to a considered view; ·
A
case for a meeting to be held outside of County Hall would need to be made and
considered fully given the resources that would be required. RESOLVED: That the
report together with the comments outlined above be noted. |
|
Date of next meeting. The next
meeting of the Commission is scheduled to take place on Wednesday 1 September 2010. Minutes: It was
noted that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on |