Agenda and minutes

Mr. D. R. Parsons CBE CC (For Minute 132)

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 November were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 35.

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.

(a)       The estimated costs of running the Centre are as follows:

§                     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 principal sources of income are room rental, event hire, County Council funding and a County Council utility contribution reflecting the utility costs of the library located within the Centre.

(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 12 January 2010. The Directors will stand down for an election of Directors at the Annual General Meeting of George Ward Centre Ltd. to be held in April 2011;

(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.

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).

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.

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.”

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 19 January 2011.

The Leader of the Council has been invited to attend this session.

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 England was welcomed.  The new ‘General Power of Competence’ was also to be welcomed, as it would allow local authorities to do anything an individual could do (subject to the same legal limitations), instead of being restricted to what Parliament had expressly authorised;

·                    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.

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.

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 Scrutiny Commissioners and the Deputy Commissioners and to seek approval to new arrangements in regard to the agreement of work programmes for all Overview and Scrutiny Committees. The second report dealt with the timetabling arrangements for the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) following the delay in the Government’s announcement of the Local Government Finance Settlement. A copy of both reports is filed with these minutes.

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 Scrutiny Commissioners) be authorised to make amendments to the agreed work programmes, as necessary;

(d)               That the proposed arrangements for scrutiny of the MTFS, as outlined in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the relevant report, be noted.

RESOLVED:

It was noted that the next meeting of the Commission would be held on 19 January at 11.00am.