Venue: Framland Committee Room, County Hall, Glenfield
Contact: Mr. M.I. Seedat (Tel: 0116 305 6037) Email: mseedat@leics.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on |
|
Question Time. Minutes: Mr Abbott, an elector registered in the County, asked the Chairman the following questions under Standing Order 35:- 1.
Have
the police been formally consulted concerning the impact on police resources both
locally (the proposed site) and county-wide re the new powers the police
apparently have? 2.
If they
were consulted, who was consulted? 3.
What
action will be taken if Travellers refuse to pay fees for access to the Transit
Site? Will the Council require
“cash-up-front”? 4.
How
much will the Travellers be charged for access to the
site? Is this per person or per caravan
or something else? How has this charge
been calculated? How much is expected to
be generated through fees in the financial year? 5.
Is the
long-term aim that the Transit Site becomes self-financing? 6.
If an
illegal encampment that is larger than the available plots on the Transit Site
is “moved on”, how will Police/Council determine who gets the Transit Site
places? What happens to the others? 7.
What
action will be taken should Travellers intentionally damage, foul or otherwise
disrespect the provided transit site?
How does the Council propose that the offenders are identified and
prosecuted? 8.
What
action will the Council/Police take to ensure that the Transit Site does not
spread on to adjacent land? 9.
Can the
Council confirm that a Traveller Site will be capped at the proposed size and
not allowed to grow over time? 10.
What
hours will the site warden work? Will
the warden live on-site? What training
and support will the warden receive to ensure the Council’s duty of care to its
employees is fulfilled? 11.
What
will the warden be paid? Will they receive any enhancements to their
salary? (for example anti-social hours). 12.
What
action will be taken should the warden be abused or otherwise treated
disrespectfully? 13.
What
action would be taken if crime rates in the area of a Traveller Site rise above
normal levels 14.
Would
Neighbourhood Policing staff (both Officers and PCSO’s) be expected to go on to
the Traveller Site during their normal “beat”?
Will they provide a visible and reassuring policing presence to the
Travellers? 15.
Will
the objections of NWLDC be considered when arriving at a decision on the
placement of the Traveller Site? 16.
Do the
views of the local community carry sufficient weight to force a change of
heart? 17.
Will
the planning permission process be an open and transparent one despite the
Council effectively being judge and jury? 18.
Should
covenants be lifted to facilitate the placement of a Transit Site, will the
same flexibility be available to local residents wishing to lift/alter
covenants on their own property? 19.
What
impact would a Transit Site at Snibston have on the attraction for visitors to
the local St Mary’s Church? 20.
If, as
the FAQ suggests, property values would not be adversely affected by the
placement of a Transit Site, will the Council give an undertaking to compensate
home/business owners should values take an unexpected tumble? 21.
Will
the authorities (Council & Police) take steps to tackle both anti-social
behaviour and dangerous/nuisance animals with precisely the same effort as seen
in the rest of the local community? 22.
Will
CCTV be installed at the Transit Site? 23.
Should
damage, theft or dirt be an issue at the Traveller Site, how promptly would the
Council act to put things right? 24.
Should
crime occur that is traced to a resident on the Traveller Site, can the Police
enter the site and apprehend the individual(s) without a warrant? 25. Will the records of Travellers entering the ... view the full minutes text for item 38. |
|
Questions asked by members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5). Minutes: Mr John Legrys asked the following questions of the Chairman under Standing Order 7(3):- A.
General County Wide Policy The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Section 62A-E give the
police powers to remove travellers trespassing, providing a suitable pitch was
available on a local authority managed site in the same LA area. The Housing Act 2004 Section 225 ten years
later required councils to carry out an assessment of need for traveller sites
and, if a shortfall was found, to prepare a strategy in respect of the meeting
of such needs and to identify land for new sites. 1.
What
was the result of the assessment for the 2.
When
was this assessment carried out? 3.
How
many sites/pitches are needed in total across the County? 4.
In
which districts are they needed? 5.
How
many sites/pitches are needed in each of these districts? 6.
Is it
the intention eventually to have a least one transit site per district? In 2004 a Joint Officer Working Party of the County Council, all District
Councils, Leicester City Council and 7.
Where
were the 8.
What
has happened to these sites? The following have been given as criteria for the selection of suitable
transit sites ·
The
areas of greatest concentration of unauthorised encampments ·
Traveller
routes ·
Location
of doctors' surgeries and other amenities ·
Near to
established Traveller sites ·
Good
but safe access to major roads ·
Access
to services (water, electricity) ·
Sites
with as low as possible impact on local communities ·
Accessible
to most of the relevant District 9.
What is
the origin of each of these criteria? 10.
Are
there any other important criteria which have should be included in this list? B. With respect to a proposed site in
the District of NW Leicestershire 1.
How many
pitches are being sought for the proposed site? 2.
How
many caravans will this include? 3.
What is
the total population estimated for this site? 4.
How
many adults in total will this include? 5.
Has
there been any estimate of the number of children this will include? 6.
Can you
list the sites that were initially surveyed for the transit site in NW
Leics? 7.
Was
land in the ownership of British Coal and other large landowners considered? 8.
Were
British Coal and the NFU approached regarding sites? 9.
What factors
led the Council's property department to recommend the Lockington/Hemington
sites? 10.
Why was
it decided not to proceed with these sites? 11.
Mention
was made of feedback from a consultation meeting with North West Leicestershire
Parish Councils in March 2007. Can you
list who was invited to this meeting? 12.
Were
invitations sent to the Parish Councils of Ravenstone, Swannington and
Coleorton? 13.
If so
who were they addressed to? C. With respect to the current
consideration of the three sites in NW Leicestershire 1.
Were
any soundings taken before these 3 sites were selected? If so what? 2.
Have
surveys (soil tests etc) been made of any of the proposed sites? If so, where and when? 3.
Is the
property dept working on other sites in NW Leics? 4.
Why
wasn't Scrutiny consulted on the non site specific bid? D. With respect to the consultation
process 1.
Who is
being consulted on these three sites (list organisations please)? 2. Are the police, doctors, schools, PCT ... view the full minutes text for item 39. |
|
Urgent Items. Minutes: The Chairman advised the Commission that he had agreed to consider the following issue as a matter of urgent business: - Leicestershire Anti Social Behaviour Strategy |
|
Declarations of interest. Minutes: The following members declared personal non prejudicial interest as members of District Councils in relation to any issues arising from the consideration of the reports on the Sustainable Community Strategy and Local Area Agreement and Leicestershire Anti Social Behaviour Strategy - Messrs Galton, Snartt, Hart, Legrys and Shepherd. |
|
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. Minutes: The Chief Executive reported that no petitions had been received under Standing Order 36. |
|
Transit and Stopping Place Provision for Gypsies and other Travellers. Minutes: The Commission
considered a report of the Director of Corporate Resources concerning the
decision to submit a non-site specific application to the East Midlands
Regional Assembly (EMRA) for a grant to develop a transit site for Gypsies and
other Travellers and to consult on three possible sites. A copy of the report, marked ‘E’, is filed
with these minutes. Mr John Legrys
attended the meeting as a local member.
He acknowledged the need for the Council to find a suitable site but
expressed concerns about the suitability of the proposed sites. He also expressed concern about the
consultation process which he considered to have been somewhat limited as it
had not included some parish councils and Travellers groups who were affected
by the proposals. In response to
questions, the Director of Corporate Resources advised the Commission as
follows: (i)
the original
non-site specific bid had not succeeded.
The Council had been advised of the decision by GOEM in June 2007. The announcement of a second round of funding
had been made at a late stage. The
deadline for the current round was 30th November 2007 and the
Cabinet would be considering the outcome of the consultation on 23rd
November. The outcome of the bid would
be known by April 2008. This tight
timetable was one of the main reasons for a shorter than normal consultation
period. (ii)
Since
2004, the County Council had been in discussion with district councils with a
view to identifying possible transit sites.
To date not one site had been identified by the district councils. It was acknowledged that further work needed
to be undertaken at district council level. (iii)
The
criteria for selection of sites were based on Government guidance and a further
issue had been included relating to the “impact on local communities”. (iv)
Discussions
had recently commenced with British Coal about potential sites but to date no
response had been received. (v)
The
Cabinet had, following representations, decided not to proceed with the
proposed site at Lockington and Hemington. (vi)
A
considerable number of well-argued responses had been received as a consequence
of the consultation exercise. In the ensuing
discussions the following comments were made by members: ·
there
was a clear need to identify appropriate transit sites if illegal encampments were
to be dealt with; ·
district
councils needed to be urged to identify appropriate sites in preparing their
local development frameworks; ·
the
issue of the effect on local properties resulting from the identification of
possible transit sites needed to be considered; ·
the lessons
learnt from the current consultation process needed to be noted and
incorporated in any future consultations. RESOLVED: That the
information now provided be noted and the views now
expressed be drawn to the attention of the Cabinet. |
|
Combined Performance Report - Quarter 2 - 2007/08. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Commission considered a joint report of the Chief Executive and
Director of Corporate Resources concerning issues on both the revenue budget
and key performance indicators where performance is below target. A copy of the
report, marked ‘A’, is filed with these minutes. In response to questions, the Commission was advised as follows:-
The Director of Corporate Resources advised the Commission that the Local
Government Finance Settlement would be announced on 6th December.
Given the complexity of the likely changes it might be difficult to produce an
analysis of the effect of the settlement in the usual time. RESOLVED: a)
That the good progress being made in relation to
the targets and commitments be noted and that the officers be commended on the
new format of reporting financial and performance data; b)
That the report be drawn to the attention of the
Chairmen and Spokesmen of all Scrutiny Committees inviting them to raise issues
as appropriate with the relevant Chief Officers. |
|
Second Review of the 2007/08 Capital Programme. Additional documents: Minutes: The Commission considered a report of the Director of Corporate
Resources concerning the second review of the 2007/08 Capital Programme. A copy
of the report, marked ‘B’, is filed with these minutes. In response to questions, the Director of Corporate Resources advised some
of that the contribution to the RESOLVED: That the current position on the projected spend,
estimated at 97% on the capital programme, be noted and welcomed. |
|
Development of Sustainable Community Strategy and the LAA - Key Performance Indicators. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Commission considered the reports of the Chief Executive which set
out: i)
how the ‘This is Leicestershire ‘ evidence base
related to the work of the Commission and contributed to the development of
outcomes for inclusion in the Leicestershire Sustainable Community Strategy and
Local Area Agreement; ii)
key performance information in the context of
changes to the local government performance framework together with the early
views of the Government Office for the East Midlands (GOEM) as to the key
priorities for Leicestershire. Copies of the reports, marked ‘C’ and ‘D’ respectively, are filed with
these minutes. The Commission also considered a supplementary report of the Chief
Executive setting out the views of the Scrutiny Committees on the Sustainable
Community Strategy, a copy which is also filed with these minutes. In the ensuing discussion members endorsed the comments made by the
scrutiny committees and, in particular, the comment of the Children and Young
People’s Service Scrutiny Committee that priority should be given to the
development of facilities for children and young people. Members were of the
view that this would not only allow for a number of the key concerns emerging
at Community Forum meetings to be addressed but would also help deliver some of
the key targets likely to be included in the LAA. In addition members asked
that: i)
consideration be given to strengthening the role of
Community Forums by delegating funding to these bodies so that they could
address the identified needs of their area; ii)
the Strategy should not focus solely on areas and
people deemed to be deprived but that it also should seek to address issues of
social inclusion and cohesion across the County; iii)
consideration should be given
to the mapping of the needs of social groups across the County which might highlight
non geographic deprivation. RESOLVED: That the comments now made, together with those of the Scrutiny Committees,
be submitted to the Cabinet for consideration. |
|
Anti Social Behaviour Strategy. Minutes: The Commission
considered this matter, the Chairman having decided it was of an urgent nature,
in view of the need to obtain approval of the Anti Social Behaviour Strategy so
that the County Council and its partners could begin to implement the Action Plan
arising from the Strategy as soon as possible. The Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive setting out
the draft Anti Social Behaviour Strategy and seeking the comments of the
Scrutiny Commission thereon. A copy of the report is filed with these minutes. In response to questions, members were advised as follows: i)
the Leader of the Council was in discussion
with the Chief Constable and others on the possibility of funding the roll out
of 101 telephone line to all areas of the County. These discussions had not
addressed the recent speculation that the Home Office might withdraw funding
for the scheme; ii)
discussions on a common
methodology for identifying and recording anti social behaviour were nearing
completion and the revised recording arrangements would be in place soon. RESOLVED: That the Cabinet be advised that the Commission welcomes and supports
the draft Anti Social Behaviour Strategy. |
|
Exclusion of the Public. |
|
Oracle E Business Suite Implementation and Consultancy Support. Minutes: The Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive concerning the
decision of the Cabinet to approve the extension of the County Council’s use of
Oracle e-Business Suite and the preferred method of procurement for future
consultancy support. The decision of the Cabinet had been ‘called – in’ on the
basis that it involved significant expenditure, unassessed
risk and the centralisation of functions and corporate practice. A copy of the
report, marked ‘F’, is filed with these minutes. The report was not for
publication by virtue of paragraphs 3 and 10 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 A of the
Local Government Act 1972. The Commission also considered the following supplementary papers:
Copies of these supplementary papers, marked 1 and 2 respectively, are
also filed with these minutes. These reports were also not for publication by
virtue of paragraphs 3 and 10 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 A of the Local
Government Act 1972. In response to questions, the Director of Corporate Resources replied as
follows:
RESOLVED: That the decision of the Cabinet be noted and
that no further action be taken. 10.00 am - 12.00 pm CHAIRMAN 07 November 2007 APPENDIX Distribution
List Name: Travellers
meeting in North West Leicestershire Appleby
Magna parishcouncil@applebymagna.org.uk Ashby Town Council colin.gay@btconnect.com Auzra Flynn, NW Belton belton.clerk@ntlworld.com Bob Scott, Leics
Constabulary robert.scott@leicestershire.pnn. police.uk Breedon on the Hill jo.allen2107@virgin.net Castle Donington clerk@cdpc.org.uk Charley bri-val.duncombe@ntlworld.com Christiane Athey CAthey@leics.gov.uk Christine Fisher, NW Leics. DC christine.fisher@nwleicestershire. gov.uk Coleorton sara_cowin@hotmail.com Ellistown & Battleflat ellistownparish@yahoo.co.uk Heather ? stewart@stewartshepherd. wanadoo.co.uk Ibstock ibstockparishcouncil@fsmail.net Isley cum Kegworth lesleypendleton@aol.com Long Whatton longwhatdisepc@hotmail.com Measham dawn@meashamparish.co.uk Mr. P. A. Hyde PHyde@leics.gov.uk Oakthorpe & Donisthorpe oakdonpc@hotmail.com Packington clerk@packingtonpc.org.uk Ravenstone with Snibston parishclerk@ravenstonewith snibstonparishcouncil.org.uk Snarestone rdhassall@fsmail.net Steve Siddons SSiddons@leics.gov.uk Stretton en le Field jazfeeney@aol.com Swannington bri-val.duncombe@ntlworld.com |