Agenda and minutes

Mr. A. D. Bailey CC, County Councillor for Blaby and Glen Parva (for Minute 317)

Mr. N. J. Rushton CC, Leader of the County Council (for Minute 318)

Mr. J. B. Rhodes CC, Deputy Leader of the County Council (for Minute 318)

Mr. B. L. Pain CC, Cabinet Lead Member for Economic Development (for Minute 319)

Mr. Andrew Bacon, Chairman of the Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership (for Minute 319)

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 November 2012 were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

Mr. Andre Wheeler, a resident in Barwell, asked the following questions under Standing Order 35:-

“1.        In respect of highways works, on what basis are priorities identified and funding allocated?

2.         What is the average length of time it takes the County Council’s Highways Department to act on a work order placed and agreed by the Area Highways Supervisor in relation to cleaning out drains and culverts and jet washing? Could you make specific reference to the clean-up of Hinckley Road, Barwell on 3 September 2012 in your answer?”

The Chairman replied as follows:-

“1.        Any highway defects reported to the County Council through its Customer Services Centre are assessed by a local Highway Inspector within 14 calendar days unless it is patently obvious there is a need for an emergency response within 2 hours – this may take the form of a fallen tree across a road or a road traffic collision at which assistance is required. The local Highway Inspector will assess the degree of urgency associated with the defect and assess whether it is Category 1 (with rectification expected within a further 3 calendar days) or Category 2 (with rectification expected within 90 calendar days of the original defect being identified).

The cost of the rectification works will be assigned to the relevant budget. The amount of budget available for any particular type of work in any particular year will not influence the categorization process. In other words, the speed of rectification of Category 1 and Category 2 defects is determined by need, not budget remaining.

2.            The rectification of a reported ‘blocked gully’ would fall under a Category 2 defect. This is to ensure that the County Council’s gully emptiers are not just driving from one reported blocked gully to another (a cost ineffective and time-consuming approach) but are optimising output by clearing road gullies in a sequential manner. So, whilst each individual gully is expected to be cleared within 90 days, the actual time to clear will vary from location to location. The latest evaluation of average time to clear reported blocked road gullies is actually around 60 days.

Records indicate that a road gully clearance took place between the old dairy and St Mary’s Avenue along Hinckley Road, Barwell on 11 September 2012 and was reported to the Customer Service Centre on 11 July 2012, hence this particular clearance took 62 days. It should be noted that, due to the nature of Hinckley Road, some form of traffic management is required to undertake the work safely so timing will always be dependent on the availability of Leicestershire Highways Operations’ Traffic Management Unit.

The Scrutiny Commission received an update report from the Director of Environment and Transport at its meeting on 7 November 2012. We are therefore fully aware of the challenges posed this year by the extreme weather conditions to delivering the gully maintenance service. As Barwell was one of many locations subjected to drainage or flooding issues arising from the heavy rain between Wednesday 21 and Sunday 25 November 2012, a further check on the gullies along Hinckley Road in Barwell is scheduled for the week commencing 10 December 2012.”

The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5).

There were no urgent items for consideration.

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.

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 an item placed on the agenda at the request of Mr. A. D. Bailey CC, local member for Blaby and Glen Parva concerning a proposal for a bus corridor scheme in conjunction with the City Council on the A426. A copy of the report, marked ‘B’, is filed with these minutes.

The proposed scheme had received a significant level of public and press attention, with Glen Parva Parish Council having submitted a lengthy consultation response and a petition with approximately 4,400 signatures.

The Director of Environment and Transport delivered a presentation outlining the background to the scheme. A copy of the slides forming the presentation is filed with these minutes. Arising from the presentation, the following key points were noted:

·         The decision to implement the scheme was based around the need for a quicker, more reliable and punctual bus service. The two existing traffic lanes would be retained as part of the scheme, which meant there would be no reduction in general traffic capacity;

·         The scheme was part of an initiative to increase the number of people travelling on buses. Increasing the reliability and journey time of the bus network was recognised as being essential to increasing their use;

·         Some footpath widths would be reduced along the route as part of the proposals, though footpaths of 1.5 metres or less would be increased. All footpaths along the route would meet the national guideline minimum width of 1.8 metres;

·         The A426 was a key access route to the City. By improving bus access there would be knock-on economic benefits to the County.

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting the local member, Mr. A. D. Bailey CC who thanked the Commission for the opportunity to present his argument. Mr. Bailey tabled a letter he had received in 2005 from the then Assistant Director of Environment and Transport giving an assurance that bus lanes would not be pursued along the A426 at the expense of footpath width. A copy of this letter, together with some supporting information also provided is filed with these minutes.

Mr. Bailey outlined his argument against the scheme under the following headings:

Health and Safety

·         Sections of the A426 were not wide enough to accommodate bus lanes. Though it was acknowledged that the scheme would meet the national guidelines for minimum footpath width requirements, the impact of reducing the width of the footpath at certain points would have knock-on effects to the health and safety of cyclists and pedestrians;

Bus Service Reliability

·         The scheme was expected to reduce the bus journey times on key routes along the A426 by around five minutes. It was felt that this did not represent a significant benefit and that most people made decisions about whether to travel on buses based on cost and convenience. It was acknowledged that the Council had little influence over the cost of fares and that this issue lay with the bus companies;

Value for Money

·         Though the scheme was grant funded to a large extent, it would still require some £600,000 of capital funding from the County Council. It was felt that the majority of benefits of the scheme would be felt in the City rather than the County and that the benefits put forward did not represent good value for money for County Council taxpayers;

Public Opinion

·         Only 30% of over 1,000 respondents to the consultation had given their support to the scheme. Around 4,400 residents had signed a petition opposing the scheme and local councillors at district and parish level and Mr. Andrew Robathan MP were known to be against the scheme.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 317.

This session is scheduled to finish at 3.00pm. The focus of the discussion will principally be around:

·         Key priorities;

·         Key policy challenges expected in the coming months; and

·         The financial outlook going forward.

The Leader of the Council will be supported at this session by the Deputy Leader and the Cabinet Lead Member for Resources.

The Commission welcomed the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council to discuss the Leader’s first months in office and the Council’s financial position.

The Leader delivered a brief statement at the start of the session which included the following key points:

·         The opening months of his term had been challenging with some Group disciplinary issues. The Conservative Group was now committed to a new Disciplinary Strategy which it was hoped all political groups would commit to. He felt that restoring the reputation of the County Council was of paramount importance;

·         He had re-introduced Group Leaders’ meetings in an effort to increase collaboration and the sharing of cross-party ideas;

·         The biggest challenge going forward would be the requirement to identify efficiency savings, balanced against the need to maintain frontline services;

·         He had met or was scheduled to meet all leaders of neighbouring local authorities and district councils and local MPs;

·         He wished to focus his energies solely on Leicestershire and would only engage in meetings in Whitehall when there was a tangible benefit to the residents of Leicestershire;

·         He was fully committed to the “6Cs” (three cities (Leicester, Nottingham and Derby) and three counties (Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire)) approach and working with neighbouring LEPs, which he felt would be the most effective route through which the County’s economy would be enabled to grow.

Arising from the ensuing debate, the following key points were noted:

Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS)

·         There was a commitment to freeze council tax for the life of the Council. The MTFS would be re-opened following the Local Government Finance Settlement, (which was expected on 19 December) and the changes that had been made nationally in respect of council tax benefits and business rates;

·         The four year programme to identify efficiency savings of £74 million was on track. There would be ongoing pressures on the budget, such as the increased demand for Adult Social Care services arising from a growing elderly population and the loss of funding as a result of the academies programme;

·         The Council’s move to being a “commissioner” of services would become an increasingly important way of identifying efficiency savings, though service standards would need to be closely monitored to ensure that they continued to be of a high quality;

·         The ongoing transfer of the Public Health function from the Primary Care Trust to the County Council had been a success and one that the Council was viewed as leading on nationally. Resources had been allocated in the budget to deal with any shortfall when the transfer was concluded in April 2013.

Key Policy Challenges

·         The Council’s “Supporting Leicestershire Families” programme was viewed as a key policy challenge. The success of the Programme relied heavily on the support of other authorities and agencies and therefore the cultivation of robust relationships would be key to the successful delivery of the Programme;

·         It would be an ongoing challenge to deliver the required savings in respect of concessionary and home to school transport, the matter having been deferred by the Cabinet in May 2012. The Cabinet would be taking a fresh look at the proposals within the context of the MTFS in light of the Local Government Finance Settlement;

Overview and Scrutiny

·         The Leader was willing to negotiate a revised approach. He was particularly keen to place greater emphasis on the scrutiny of the Health Service functions, which it was felt had placed some pressure on the workload of the Adults and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Much of this extra workload was felt to be as a result of the Joint Health Scrutiny Committee not having  ...  view the full minutes text for item 318.

This session will be prefaced by a brief introduction to the Government’s “City Deals” programme. The focus of the discussion will be around the following three themes:

1.       Investment in Leicestershire;

2.       Focus and Priorities; and

3.       Sub-Regional Ambition.

Mr. B. L. Pain CC and Mr. P. C. Osborne CC (County Council representatives on the LLEP Board) have been invited for this session.

A copy of the issues the Commission wishes to raise with Mr. Bacon is attached. By way of background information, the following documents are attached for members’ information:

·         The LLEP’s Economic Growth Plan;

·         A document outlining the LLEP’s key first year achievements.

This session is scheduled to finish at 5.00pm

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting Andrew Bacon, Chairman of the Leicester and Leicestershire Economic Partnership, to discuss the progress of the LLEP during its first 18 months in operation. A copy of the LLEP’s Economic Growth Plan, a newsletter outlining its first year achievements and a copy of a draft Expression of Interest bid for the Government’s “City Deals” Programme is filed with these minutes, marked ‘C’.

Mr. Bacon thanked the Commission for the opportunity to brief members on the achievements of the LLEP. The Chairman commented that this was the first time the LLEP had been scrutinised by either the City or County Councils and he hoped that they would be able to build an effective relationship with one another.

Arising from the ensuing discussion, the following points were noted:

Securing Investment

·         Under the LLEP, roughly five times the amount of private investment had been secured for the City and County than under the previous arrangements which included the East Midlands Development Agency and the LeicesterShire Economic Partnership;

·         The creation of around 25,000 jobs was being supported under the LLEP, some of which would be part of the MIRA Technology Zone in Hinckley. £8 million of Growth Point funding had been secured for 2013, which would create in the region of a further 1,250 jobs;

·         Though little of the funding gained thus far had reached frontline services, a number of projects were being progressed for 2013 which would provide a blend of short and long-term employment opportunities, particularly in the skills-based sector;

Focus

·         Though the Economic Growth Plan included some 70 priority areas, not all were to be delivered by the LLEP itself, as it only employed eight full-time members of staff. Many priorities relied on business and other partners taking the lead, with a good number of the priorities set out over a long timescale;

·         The proactive involvement of business had been one of the key successes of the LEP programme, which had enabled a more inclusive approach and had increased business confidence;

·         The creation of long-term and sustainable employment would be achieved through ongoing road and rail improvements in North West Leicestershire and through the MIRA Technology Zone and Loughborough Science Park. The target to achieve 25,000 jobs was a conservative figure based on schemes that had already been agreed. The responsibility of the success of sustainable employment in the long-term would to some extent lie with educators to ensure that school-aged children were given a greater insight into and provided with the necessary skills for “the world of work”;

·         Securing investment was currently the key barrier to ensuring long-term growth. The LLEP would have a presence at the MIPIM Conference in March 2013 in order to try and attract international investment. It was acknowledged that more could be done to promote the area beyond the Enterprise Zone offering. The County Council also had a major role to enable development, which was viewed as a contributory factor to achieving growth.

Sub-Regional Ambition

·         It was acknowledged that the “East Midlands” had to some extent lost its voice. A greater level of collaboration with business had led to a firmer commitment to “sub-regional” activity. The Government’s “City Deals” programme presented a timely opportunity to bring to the fore innovative solutions to enable effective cross-border joint-working;

·         Through the City Deal document, the LLEP and its partners was taking up the opportunity to combine funding to stimulate growth in the sub-region. It was also noted that there would be clear benefits to the Government’s proposed “Local Transport Body” approach, which would be based around LEP areas and support the prioritisation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 319.

It was NOTED that the next meeting of the Commission would be held on Thursday 31 January 2013 at 10.00am.