Venue: Sparkenhoe Committee Room, County Hall, Glenfield
Contact: Mr. S. J. Weston (Tel: 0116 305 6226) Email: sam.weston@leics.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Minutes: The minutes
of the meeting held on |
|
Question Time. Minutes: Mr. Andre Wheeler, a resident in Barwell, asked
the following questions under Standing Order 35:- “1. When
did the Council sign the contract with Galliford Try Plc to build the George
Ward Community Centre? 2. Why was a group of residents in
Barwell given £20,000 of tax payers’ money, of which a large part was
spent without any checks and balances put in place by the County
Council? Can I be reassured that this is not happening in other parts
of the County Council?” The
Chairman replied as follows:- “1. In line with Constructing Excellence principles, Property Services undertook a tender exercise in 2006 to establish a framework of contractors to procure capital works. The tender was based on a quality / price assessment with the price establishing a % figure for fixed prelims and profit that, pro – rata could be applied to all projects. The framework, whilst not being a specific works contract, is a binding document that sets out the working relationship between the parties including conditions of appointment, the form of contract etc. The agreed form of contract was the NEC option C which works on an open book basis to which the %addition is applied.
A competitive tender to establish a guaranteed maximum price was held between the contractors in July 2008 leading to the appointment of Galliford Try Construction Ltd as principle contractor.
An instruction to proceed was
issued by letter on 2. The
County Council allocated a grant of £20,000 per year to the George Ward
Community Project (GWCP) from 2007/08 to support the local Steering Group in
the development of the GWCP and, now that the Centre is open, to contribute
toward on-going expenditure and help it to achieve sustainability as soon as
possible. The money has been held by the County Council and allocated to the Group
as required. Expenditure was agreed at the multi-agency project board that met
monthly until the completion of the Centre in July. Key items, for example were
to develop the George Ward Centre website and training, which were approved at
the Project Board and the detail discussed at GWCP Committee meetings. Smaller
items of expenditure such as travel expenses for Committee Members and printing
costs were agreed in principle by the Project Board, with the detail overseen
by the GWCP Committee. The County Council has worked with the volunteers from the GWCP
Committee, who have dedicated a significant amount of time to deliver this
exciting new Community Centre, to keep the costs of the project down and leave
the Centre in the best possible financial position going forward.” Mr. Wheeler asked the following supplementary
question in relation to question 1:- “Why did the instruction to proceed with building the Centre precede the
GWCP Committee’s business plan?” The Chairman
responded that he would ensure that Mr. Wheeler was provided with a written
response to his supplementary question. Mr. Wheeler asked the following
supplementary question in relation to question 2:- “Why were the following key items of expenditure approved by the George
Ward Community Project Committee, making use of taxpayer’' money: ·
A PC
maintenance contract worth over £1,000; ·
Travel
expenses amounting to over £400; and ·
Wep page costs
amounting to over £3,000?” The Chairman responded to the effect of:- “As stated, all key items of expenditure were agreed by the multi-agency
project board and this would have included the two larger amounts stated in the
supplementary question. Smaller items ... view the full minutes text for item 100. |
|
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). |
|
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, non-prejudicial interest in respect
of items 8, 9 and 10 on the agenda as members of district/borough or parish
councils (Minutes 106, 107 and 108 refer): Mr. A. D. Bailey CC Mr. R. Blunt CC Mrs. R. Camamile CC Mr. D. Jennings CC Mr. G. Jones CC Mr. P. G. Lewis CC Mr. R. J. Shepherd CC Mr. D.
Jennings also declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in respect of item
11 on the agenda as a member of Blaby District Council (Minute 109 refers). |
|
Declarations of the Party Whip. Minutes: There were
no declarations of the party whip. |
|
A petition signed by
284 residents is to be presented by the Lead Petitioner Mrs. R. Johnson. Minutes: A petition submitted by Mrs. Johnson, a local resident in Belton, signed
by 284 local residents was presented to the Commission requesting retention and
improvements to the 129 service between Ashby-de-la-Zouch and Loughborough. 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. With the consent of the Chairman, Mrs. Johnson addressed the Commission
and stated that there had been rumours that the service was to be withdrawn and
that this would have an adverse effect on the older people in Belton and
Osgathorpe who relied on the service to gain access to essential services of
those villages. She further stated that it was the opinion of many in those
villages that a ‘dial-a-ride’ or equivalent demand-response service would not
be adequate for the needs of villagers. The Director of Environment and Transport addressed the Commission and
made the following key points: ·
The
service was being reviewed within the context of the Council’s need to identify
unprecedented savings of £66 million; ·
The
Council’s Cabinet had agreed to review all services that were outside of the
Council’s policy to provide a daytime network of services to at least an hourly
timetable and within 800 metres of 95% of County residents; ·
The
Council was currently in the process of gathering information on the service.
No final decision had yet been made and users were encouraged to inform the
Council of their essential journey needs in order that an appropriate
alternative service could be designed in the event of withdrawal; ·
Those
affected by the withdrawal of the service would be given four months’ notice; ·
The
operator of the service had already been notified that the contract for the
service might be terminated; ·
The
Council was having to look critically at all services and it was acknowledged
that there were a number of services outside of Council policy that, for
historical reasons, had continued to operate, of which this was one. The
potential saving from withdrawal of the service was in the region of £47,000
per annum. Arising from discussion of the points made above, and in response to
questions from members the following key points were noted: ·
There
were a number of alternative ways to provide a service for users, of which one
was a demand-response service provided by a taxi company. It was highlighted that
this had been successful in other villages as it was guaranteed and viewed as
more personal – allowing users to make arrangements for regular journeys; ·
It
was felt that the Council’s policy might need to be reviewed in the future to
take account of the significant savings being expected of the Council. It was proposed, seconded and carried:- “That the matter be referred to officers in the
Environment and Transport Department for consideration as part of the ongoing
review of services that were regarded as exceptions to the Council’s policy for
supported bus services.” |
|
Prospect Leicestershire. Additional documents: Minutes: The
Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive concerning a summary of
the key points raised at the Commission’s meeting with
representatives of Prospect Leicestershire and the views of the Commissioners
in regard to future scrutiny of this area. A copy of the report, marked ‘C’, is
filed with these minutes. The Chief
Executive reported that the Council had submitted its bid for a joint
Leicestershire and Leicester Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). As part of the
bid, the Council had also expressed a willingness to work with Northamptonshire
County Council and other nearby authorities to deliver services. More would be
known on the success of the bid in October when a Coalition Government white
paper was due to be published. A report on the review of delivery arrangements
involving Prospect Leicestershire and LeicesterShire Promotions was expected imminently. In order
for the Commission to scrutinise this area in a meaningful way, it was felt
beneficial to await further information on the arrangements for the LEP.
Members further felt that it would be helpful to have a briefing on these
arrangements when more details were available. In the long
term, it was suggested that the County Council should take the lead role in
establishing how best to scrutinise the economic delivery arrangements. RESOLVED: (a)
That
the current position in relation to the submission of the Local Enterprise
Partnership bid be noted; (b)
That
the views of the Commissioners be noted and that the intention to review the
new arrangements for economic delivery at a future meeting of the Commission be
supported; (c)
That
the Chief Executive be requested to provide a briefing to all members on the
new arrangements for the LEP at the appropriate time. |
|
Voluntary Action LeicesterShire. Additional documents: Minutes: The
Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive concerning a summary of
the key points raised at the Commission’s meeting with Kevan Liles, Chief
Executive of Voluntary Action LeicesterShire (VAL) and the views of the
Commissioners in regard to future scrutiny of this area. A copy of the report,
marked ‘D’, is filed with these minutes. With regard
to page 1of the report, it was acknowledged that Paragraph 2 (a) should have
read, “VAL had been awarded the contract by the County Council because of the
poor level of service offered to the voluntary sector.” The Chief
Executive reported that, in view of the Coalition Government’s proposals for
the “Big Society”, it would be important to refocus the voluntary sector in
order to respond to the new challenges it faced in the future. An external
review commissioned by the Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnership was
to be carried out through September and would consult widely with the sector.
The Commissioners had proposed to establish a review panel at a time when the
outcomes of the external review were known to look at the sector as a whole and
the targets that VAL was required to achieve. RESOLVED: That the
intention to establish a scrutiny review panel to assess the voluntary sector’s
readiness to meet the challenges posed by the Coalition Government and how the
County Council and other partners would need to engage with the voluntary
sector to enable them to rise to the challenge be supported. |
|
Final Report of the Scrutiny Review Panel on Winter Maintenance. Minutes: The
Commission considered the Draft Final Report of the Scrutiny Review Panel on
Winter Maintenance. A copy of the report, marked ‘E’, is filed with these
minutes. The
Chairman of the Commission, who had chaired the Review Panel, introduced the report
and commended its recommendations which would assist in further improving the
Council’s Winter Maintenance Service, despite the resources pressures the
Council currently faced. Members agreed and felt that the review had been
particularly thorough in a very short timescale. The
Director of Environment and Transport reported that government advice was
expected shortly on the legal implications for members of the public acting as
‘Snow Wardens’ clearing snow on behalf of the parish council. The Head of Legal
Services advised that the Litigation Team in Legal Services would also be
looking at this area with a view to providing clear advice. The Commission
advised that, in future, review panel reports should include a summary of
headline recommendations at the front of the report, rather than the current
practice of including them throughout. RESOLVED: That the
overall findings of the Scrutiny Review Panel be supported and referred to the
Cabinet for consideration. |
|
Hall Farm, Blaby - Item Requested by Mr. A. D. Bailey CC. Minutes: The
Commission considered a report of the Director of Corporate Resources placed on
the agenda at the request of Mr. A. D. Bailey CC concerning the proposed sale
of Hall Farm, Blaby. A copy of the report, marked ‘F’, is filed with these
minutes. Arising from
questioning by Mr. Bailey, the following key points were noted: ·
As
part of any development put forward by the County Council, there would be a
number of improvements to the area such as footways, bridleways and an
extension to the park. Wildlife surveys would be conducted to ensure minimal
impact to any affected habitats; ·
Blaby
District Council had indicated in its spatial policies that areas to the north
and south of Hall Farm were not suitable for development and there was a lack
of brownfield land available in the area; ·
Although
there had been around 400 residents who had strongly opposed the plans, this
was not felt to be a significant number of objections for the area’s size; ·
A
decision on the feasibility of any sale would initially be made by officers in
Property Services and a recommendation then put to the Council’s Cabinet for a
final decision; ·
The
matter could not proceed until the District Council’s housing targets were made
clear. RESOLVED: That the decision
to suspend the master plan for Hall Farm be noted and
that the matter will be considered by the Cabinet at a time when Blaby District
Council has reviewed its level of housing need. |
|
Date of next meeting. The next meeting of the
Commission is scheduled to take place on Minutes: It was
NOTED that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on |