Venue: Framland Committee Room, County Hall, Glenfield
Contact: Mr. S. J. Weston (Tel: 0116 305 6226) Email: sam.weston@leics.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
In Attendance: |
|
Minutes: The minutes
of the meeting held on 10 November were taken as read, confirmed and signed. |
|
Question Time. Minutes: The Chief
Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 35. |
|
Questions asked by members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5). Minutes: Mr. Max Hunt CC asked the Chairman the following
questions under Standing Order 7(3):- Third Sector Grants ”1. In
view of some concerns expressed about the financing of the George Ward Community
Centre in Barwell, understood to be leased by the George Ward Centre Ltd (GWC
Ltd) and owned by the County Council, could the Chairman tell the Commission: (a)
The estimated annual fixed
costs of running the Centre for the next three years; (b)
The estimated income for
the next three years, the sources of that income, and any related costs; (c)
Who is liable for meeting
any deficit, year on year and what reserves are known to be available to GWC
Ltd. to meet this; (d)
The names of the current
Trustees/Directors and the other shareholders or body who are responsible for
appointing Trustees or Directors? (e)
To whom and where annual
accounts and annual reports are required to be presented annually (apart from
Companies House). 2.
Would he confirm that the County Council will
underwrite losses of the Company up to the value of £20,000 per annum until
2012/3 and that £20,000 has already been paid in 2010? 3.
How many other community
facilities in receipt of financial support from the County Council are managed
by companies limited by guarantee, and could he list these? 4.
Given that some personal
responsibility and a level of financial liability falls upon individual
Directors or Trustees when managing community facilities, what training and
advice does the County Council offer to prevent such companies from getting
into personal or collective difficulties? 5.
Can he confirm which
community organisations (other than Parish or Town Councils) managing such
facilities and in receipt of grants from the County Council, have submitted
Annual Accounts for the last financial year and how many are outstanding?” The Chairman replied as follows:- ”1. The George Ward Community Centre is owned by Leicestershire County
Council and is leased to the George Ward Centre Ltd. §
2010/11 - £70,612; §
2011/12 - £99,938; §
2012/13 - £103,266. (b) The
estimated income for the Centre is as follows; §
2010/11 - £75,026; §
2011/12 - £101,088; §
2012/13 - £114,599.
(The
figures in the answers to (a) and (b) for 2010/11 reflect the opening of the
Centre from July 2010 onwards. All estimates are for a March to February
financial year. Alternative projections based on additional staff and room
rental projections have also been prepared by the Company.) (c)
George Ward Community Centre
Ltd. is responsible for managing the Centre, including meeting any deficit that
may arise. Reserves have not yet been generated within the time the centre has
been in operation; (d)
The current Directors of
the company are Tricia Smith, Ken Barsby and Paul
Cooney. The current Directors were appointed by a meeting of the George Ward
Community Project Group held on (e)
Annual accounts and reports
are to be provided to the County Council, which is providing tapered revenue
funding to help enable the Company to establish as a sustainable operation.
This funding amounts to a total of £180,000 over three years from the opening
of the Centre. 2. This year, two quarterly payments of £20,000 ... view the full minutes text for item 127. |
|
Urgent items. Minutes: The Chairman indicated that he had agreed to take a report of the Chief Executive updating on progress made in relation to the arrangements for the Single Delivery Vehicle as an item of urgent business (minute 134 below refers). |
|
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. No
declarations were made. |
|
Declarations of the Party Whip. Minutes: There were
no declarations of the party whip. |
|
Petition: To Request the Council to Review its Policy on Pavement Cafes and to ask they not be charged in order that they can Continue to Support the Economy of Melton Mowbray. A petition is to be presented by Dr. Matthew O’Callaghan
signed by 2801 local residents in the following terms: “We the undersigned call on Leicestershire County Council
to review its policy on pavement cafes and not to introduce charges for them so
that the cafes can continue to support the economy of Melton Mowbray.” Minutes: A petition submitted by Dr. Matthew
O’Callaghan, a local Borough Councillor and Mr. Michael Cooke, Editor of the
Melton Times, signed by 2,801 local residents was presented to the Commission
by Dr. O’Callaghan in the following terms: “We the undersigned
call on Leicestershire County Council to review its policy on pavement cafes
and not to introduce charges for them so that the cafes can continue to support
the economy of Melton Mowbray.” With the consent of the Chairman, Dr.
O’Callaghan addressed the Commission and made the following points in support
of the petition: ·
16 cafes, restaurants and bars in Melton were affected by the
introduction of a policy to charge for a pavement presence; ·
Of the 16 affected, only three intended to pursue paying for the
license. The remaining 13 would cease having a pavement presence. It was felt
that this would have a negative impact on the area which was recognised as the ‘Rural
Capital of Food’; ·
It was unlikely that those affected would be able to site their
tables and chairs if they were to fully adhere to the policy; ·
The opinion of owners was that it was an unnecessary and onerous
burden; ·
There were no known accidents as a result of pavement cafes. RESOLVED: That a
full report on this matter be submitted to the Commission at its next meeting
on |
|
MTFS Prospects for 2010/11-2013/14. The Leader of the Council has been invited to attend this
session. Minutes: The Chairman welcomed the Leader of the Council to the meeting and invited him to outline his thoughts on the Council’s financial position and other key issues in view of the imminent announcement of the Local Government Finance Settlement and following the Corporate Spending Review, announced by the Chancellor earlier in the year. Arising from discussion, the following points made by the Leader were noted: Localism Bill ·
The abolition of the Standards Board for ·
The new system for directly elected mayors was
radical and would almost certainly have an impact on the relationship between
the County and the City, though it was felt that this could be a positive
impact; ·
The new planning system which placed communities
at the heart of decision making in place of top-down targets was welcomed; ·
Community empowerment was an important issue,
though it would be the Council’s job to engage the public to take full
advantage of the powers contained in the Bill and ‘enable’ this transition to
take place; ·
The Bill recognised the importance of business
rates as making a key contribution to the degree by which local authorities
could become self-sufficient in the future; · There was a clear role for ‘backbench’ members to engage volunteers and encourage their involvement in providing services as part of the Big Society agenda. It was important that the Council ensured that Voluntary Action LeicesterShire delivered its contracted obligations, given the funding of nearly £1 million; ·
The Big Society agenda was seen as underpinning
much of the Localism Bill. The Bill would enable communities to take control of
services, though it was acknowledged that Leicestershire was a varied landscape
and different communities would require different levels of support to utilise
their new powers; ·
The Community Forums were seen to have a good
future. Though there were some initial difficulties, they were now perceived to
be a positive engagement tool for the Council and its partners. It was
acknowledged that much of their ‘success’ could be as a result of the £20,000
per Forum participatory budget allocation; · The Community Infrastructure Levy could cause some concern for some local authorities. However, it would enable local authorities to raise funds from developers undertaking new building projects in their area. The money could then be used to fund a wide range of infrastructure that was needed as a result of development; ·
It was hoped that the Commission would agree to
continue the Review Panel, following its
interim report on operation of The Big Society in the New Year, in order to
look at the Bill and the Green Paper on ‘Modernising Commissioning’; ·
The Leader was apposed to a return to the
committee system in Leicestershire County Council. Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) ·
The Council was only marginally worse off as a
result of the Local Government Settlement.
As had been anticipated, the Council would have to make savings in the
order of £100 million over five years, of which in excess of £50 million would
be from efficiency savings, with a further figure of about £50 million expected
to be saved as a result of service reductions; · The additional £640 million earmarked by the Government to keep Council Tax at 0% for the next year was welcomed. It was a challenging environment, but not one which could be described as significantly detrimental, as it was expected that the Authority would ... view the full minutes text for item 132. |
|
Urgent item: Update on Progress with the Single Delivery Vehicle. Minutes: The Commission considered this matter, the Chairman having decided that it was of an urgent nature due to the timescales involved. The Commission had earlier in the year received presentations from Prospect Leicestershire and Leicestershire Promotions regarding their performance and roles they undertook for the Council. The Chief Executive reported that it had been agreed at the Leicester and Leicestershire Leadership Board to combine the work of both companies into a “Single Delivery Vehicle”. The new vehicle would have to operate with substantially less resource than currently available in the combined budgets of the two companies, this was due to a reduction in funding from the County Council, City Council and district councils and the loss of funding from emda and the Homes and Communities Agency. The new Vehicle would be charged with increasing visitor numbers to the County, increasing inward investment and increasing recognition of ‘place’. It was likely that work on physical regeneration would be brought back in-house and dealt with by the two local authorities. Positive discussions had already taken place between the Chief Executives of both companies in regard to the way forward, though it was noted that there were some complex legal and other technical matters to be resolved before any conclusions could be reached. It was anticipated that there would be a resolution to the situation early in the New Year. A detailed update on the situation would be submitted to the Commission at its next meeting in January. RESOLVED: That the update on progress with the arrangements for a Single Delivery Vehicle be noted. |
|
Issues arising from the meeting of the Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners. Additional documents:
Minutes: The
Commission considered two supplementary reports of the Chief Executive. The
first report dealt with matters arising from the session held on 8 December
between the RESOLVED: (a)
That
the provisional work programme for the period up to June 2011 be noted; (b)
That
the work programmes of both the Adults, Communities and Health and the Children
and Young People’s Services Scrutiny Overview and Scrutiny Committees as
appended to the report be agreed; (c)
That
the Statutory Scrutiny Officer, following consultation with the Chairman and
Deputy Chairman (or in the case of the Commission, following consultation with
the (d)
That
the proposed arrangements for scrutiny of the MTFS, as outlined in paragraphs 4
and 5 of the relevant report, be noted. |
|
Date of next meeting. Minutes: RESOLVED: It was
noted that the next meeting of the Commission would be held on 19 January at |