Agenda and minutes

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 Chairman sought and obtained the consent of the Commission to vary the order of business from that set out in the agenda for the meeting.

Further to the questions submitted under Item 2, a draft report to the Cabinet is attached for members’ wider consideration of this issue.

The Commission considered a Cabinet report of the Director of Environment and Transport concerning proposals to make permanent an experimental 24 hour bus lane scheme on the A6, Leicester Road, Oadby. A copy of the report, marked ‘B’, is filed with these minutes.

The Chairman explained that the Cabinet report, which would be considered at a meeting on 16 November, had been brought before the Commission as a result of the questions submitted by Mr. Kaufman under Minute 112. It was felt that by debating this report, the Commission would be enabled to consider the issue fully and would also allow the respective local members to address the Commission, in addition to Mr. Kaufman himself.

The Director, in introducing the report, explained that the A6 bus and cycle scheme had been a key component of the LTP2 and was also a key factor in delivering performance improvements to bus services that were projected to be part of the LTP3. The scheme had initially been an ‘experimental’ traffic regulation order and would usually have been confirmed as permanent by the Director under delegated powers, however, given that local members had raised concerns a Cabinet decision on the matter was required.

With the consent of the Chairman, Mr. Kaufman addressed the Commission and explained that, despite being generally supportive of measures to encourage the use of public transport, he felt that as a result of the scheme regular highway had been lost at the racecourse roundabout and a continuous route along the road was not now available for other traffic. As part of his address, Mr. Kaufman raised the following additional concerns:

·                    The scheme that was built was not the same as that which was consulted on with local residents;

·                    At the initial consultation meeting, inaccurate plans of the scheme had been displayed;

·                    An additional meeting between local residents and Council officers had been promised but not convened. There appeared to have been a lack of communication between the two parties;

·                    The local members’ views were not taken account of as part of the consultation process;

With the consent of the Chairman, the local members for Oadby, Mr. D. A. Gamble CC and Mr. M. Griffiths CC addressed the Commission and explained that they were thankful for the opportunity to speak on this item. They raised the following principal points:

·                    A public meeting with local residents had been agreed to by a Council officer but had not been convened;

·                    It had been agreed that the comments of local residents would be forwarded to a Council officer. There had been no response to those comments;

·                    There was much support in the area for a peak two hour bus lane, but there appeared to be no evidence to support 24 operation of a bus lane along that route;

·                    The approximate cost of the scheme - £308,000 – was not felt to represent good value for money for the taxpayer, particularly in the present economic climate;

·                    There was a lack of consistency between the stretch of road in the City, which was a peak hour bus lane and the County, which was due to be a 24 hour lane. It was felt that this would cause some confusion.

In response to the issues raised, the Director of Environment and Transport made the following points:

·                    The scheme had required some minor alterations, shortening the bus lane by some 60 metres, which was not outside public property and which were unforeseen at the time of consultation;

·                    The City Council had installed a peak hour bus lane along the A6, as they had had to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 119.

The Commission considered a report of the Director of Environment and Transport concerning progress made in respect of the Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3). A copy of the report, marked ‘D’, is filed with these minutes.

The Chairman welcomed the Cabinet Lead Member for Environment and Transport, Mrs. L. A. S. Pendleton CC to the meeting who was attending to respond to any questions the Commission had on the progress made to date.

Arising from discussion of the report, the following points were noted:

·                    The Council had a limited transport capital fund of £17 million and would need actively to engage businesses to ensure that they took ownership of transport issues;

·                    Despite the fact that a joint LTP3 would not now be pursued with the City Council, the two authorities continued to work together constructively on transport projects;

·                    Smarter ticketing for public transport, akin to the ‘Oyster Card’ in London, was seen as a way forward, though it was recognised that there were significant obstacles to overcome if this were to be fully achievable given the number of bus service operators in the County;

·                    The Council’s Integrated Transport Model was due for delivery in November;

·                    There was concern that some districts were basing their housing projections on public transport provision, despite the possibility that services could be significantly reduced going forward. There was a danger that, particularly in rural areas, this could lead to isolation;

·                    The LTP3 was based on projected national population growth of 25%. The East Midlands was expected to grow more than any other area in the country;

·                    It would be important to continue to focus on addressing driver behaviour to ensure the safety of the road network. The Council would continue to host workshops for drivers;

·                    It would be essential to build resilience into the road network to ensure that works carried out by other agencies did not adversely affect traffic flow;

·                    The Glenfield Park and Ride scheme had been halted by the Coalition Government and currently sat on a list of projects that were worthy of further work in the future;

·                    It was hoped that parish councils would engage in the consultation process. It was felt that there had been little publicity of the LTP3 thus far and more needed to be done to ensure that parish councils were aware of and contributed to the strategy.

RESOLVED:

(a)               That, in noting the undertaken to date on the development of the LTP3 together with the consultation document, the comments outlined above be taken account of as part of the consultation process;

(b)               That the further work required to develop the LTP3 long term Strategy and Implementation Plan following consultation be noted;

(c)               That the Director of Environment and Transport be requested to deliver a presentation at a future meeting on the plans for the Leicester and Leicestershire Integrated Transport Model.

Martin Peters (CEO) and James Bowie (Chairman) of LeicesterShire Promotions will be in attendance for this item.

The Commission considered a presentation by Mr. Martin Peters, Chief Executive and Mr. James Bowie, Chairman of LeicesterShire Promotions on activities during the past year and its plans going forward in acting as the Council’s Destination Management Organisation. A copy of the slides forming the presentation is filed with these minutes.

Arising from the presentation, the following points were noted:

·                    The company had worked with borough and district councils mostly in respect of branding. One example of such work was the establishment of Melton as ‘the Rural Capital of Food’ which had led to much success and press coverage;

·                    A Tourism Forum was hosted once a year to engage partners and local businesses;

·                    The ‘GoLeicestershire!’ website was seen as a very successful marketing tool for attracting tourism to the County;

·                    The tourism industry was viewed as being likely to have a positive influence on the growth of other industries. The Company had, thus far, secured over £839 million of capital investment and created over 1,200 jobs in the City/County area;

·                    The County presently contributed £278,000 per annum to the company, the City contributed £546,000. The company turned over £1.4 million with a staff base of 11.

The Chief Executive advised the Commission that a review was currently being conducted of the Council’s tourism and economic development arrangements which would involve both LeicesterShire Promotions and Prospect Leicestershire. That review was looking into the viability of a single delivery vehicle which would bring together the work of the two companies. It was important to note that emda funding had now been withdrawn and it was likely that local authorities, who were required to pursue significant savings, would also review their involvement in the future.

The representatives of LeicesterShire Promotions withdrew from the meeting at this point. Members expressed views comparing the presentations of LeicesterShire Promotions and Prospect LeicesterShire. Comments were made that LeicesterShire Promotions were able to demonstrate a track record of effective service delivery in the area of tourism over a period of time and had developed constructive relationships with private sector service providers in this area.

Mr. Hunt raised concerns about coming to a view on the future of the two companies without a formal briefing that explained in detail the decision making process for this matter.

RESOLVED:

(a)               That Mr. Peters and Mr. Bowie be thanked for their informative presentation and that the company and its staff be congratulated for their work in promoting the County’s tourism offering;

(b)               That the comments outlined above be brought to the attention of the appropriate body responsible for making a decision on the future of the Council’s tourism and economic development arrangements and that the Head of Legal Services be asked to provide advice to members on the decision making process for this matter;

(c)               That an update report on the future of the Council’s tourism and economic development arrangements be submitted to the Commission’s next meeting on 15 December.

The Commission considered a briefing note of the Director of Environment and Transport concerning a petition which had been submitted the Commission on 9 June 2010 signed by 326 local residents requesting the provision of a footpath between the villages of Cosby and Broughton Astley. A copy of the report, marked ‘C’, is filed with these minutes.

In considering the matter, members were mindful of the Council’s present financial situation which required savings of approximately £90 million. The Council was having to make ‘smarter’ choices about how it spent its limited budget and it was felt that requests of this kind could not be accommodated in the present financial climate.

RESOLVED:

That the Director of Environment and Transport be asked to write to the lead petitioner, Mr. Zac Kraymer, explaining that it was the Commission’s view that the provision of a footpath along the route specified was neither feasible nor justifiable in the present economic climate.

A copy of the report to be considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on 16 November is attached for the consideration of the Commission.

The Commission considered a Cabinet report of the Chief Executive concerning Waste Site Allocations Policies which required Cabinet and full County Council approval before being submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for Examination by the Planning Inspectorate . A copy of the report, marked ‘E’, is filed with these minutes.

The Chief Executive reported that the High Court had decided that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully in revoking the Regional Strategies (RSs). However, it was still the Government’s intention to abolish the RSs through the Localism Bill, which was expected to be published in November 2010 and come into force in the autumn of 2011.

Arising from discussion of the report, the following points were noted:

·                    Environmental Health had concerns with the allocations of further sites in the Mountsorrel area and this was a factor why no sites had been allocated at this time;

·                    Newhurst quarry already had the benefit of planning permission for waste management. The planning application which was refused permission by the Development Control and Regulatory Board in respect of that site was for a different waste management solution to that previously approved and was also the basis of the developer’s submission to have the site allocated.  For those reasons, the site was not recommended for allocation;

·                    Flexibility was built into the Site Allocations document in order that, in the event that proposals came forward on non-allocated sites, the Council could consider granting planning permission under certain circumstances (eg. necessary to replace or provide additional capacity);

·                    The Whetstone site was adjacent to the railway. Some members emphasised the importance of considering the use of rail for transport of waste.

RESOLVED:

That comments of the Commission as outlined above be submitted to the Cabinet for consideration at its meeting on 16 November.

The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled to take place on Wednesday 8 December 2010 at 2.00pm.

It was noted that:

(i)                 the next meeting of the Commission would be held on Wednesday 15 December at 9.20am and would incorporate a discussion with the Leader on the prospects going forward in the Medium Term Financial Strategy;

(ii)               The 8 December (at 2.00pm) date originally intended for the Commission’s next meeting would now be used for a Scrutiny Commissioners’ meeting, to which all Deputy Commissioners were invited for an item to discuss the Commission’s agenda for the next six months;

(iii)             a further meeting of the Commission would now take place on Wednesday 19 January 2010 at 2.00pm.