Venue: Guthlaxton Committee Room, County Hall, Glenfield
Contact: Mr. S. J. Weston (Tel: 0116 305 6226) Email: sam.weston@leics.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
In Attendance: Cllr. D. Mr. M.
Honeywell (For Minute 144) |
|||||||||||||||||||
Minutes of the meeting held on 15 December 2010. Minutes: The minutes
of the meeting held on |
|||||||||||||||||||
Question Time. Minutes: Dr. Matthew O’Callaghan asked the Chairman the
following questions under Standing Order 35:- Licences for Pavement Cafes “1. Could the Chairman give the date of the
implementation of this policy for each of the major towns in Leicestershire (ie
Loughborough, Melton, Coalville, Harborough, 2. Could the Chairman give a breakdown by
district of the amount of income received by the County Council in this
financial year for these pavement cafes? 3. How many local authorities are
responsible for highways similar to the County Council, and of these how many
require licences for pavement cafes and how many do not? 4.
What section of
the legislation does the licensing of pavement cafes come under? Would
the Chairman detail this section of the legislation?” The Chairman replied as follows: “1. At
its meeting on Enforcement action against those not complying with a
licence or encroaching or obstructing the highway without the benefit of a licence
will always be on the basis of managing the risks against the available
resources. Concerns regarding these matters are usually raised initially
by the local community and relate to the management of the whole street
scene including shop front displays and "A" boards for which
guidance is also provided in the Cabinet report of 2.
Income
received in 2010/11 is £700 in Charnwood and £150 in Harborough Districts with
several more application enquiries currently being processed. 3.
Most
other local authorities require a licence for a street cafe. Details of
several
As this demonstrated Leicestershire was taking a
consistent approach, further research has not been undertaken. 4. Pavement
Café Licences are issued under Section 115E of the Highways Act 1980. The County Council may licence occupiers of premises adjoining
the highway to provide refreshment facilities, including seating and chairs
subject to a consultation process with neighbours. A notice has to be displayed on the premises
for 28 days before a decision is made to issue any Licence. If occupiers of
premises do not obtain a license, they may be at risk of committing an offence
if obstructing the highway. I have arranged for the |
|||||||||||||||||||
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:- (A)
The Big Society "Is the Chairman aware that Dorothy Francis,
Chief Executive of the Leicestershire Co-operative and Social Enterprise
Development Agency, has recently been voted Leicestershire Business Woman of
the Year and will he invite her to address members so that we can all
understand more about the Big Society which she has practiced in this County
over several years." The Chairman replied as follows: “Yes, I am aware. I think this is a matter which
would be best dealt with by the Big Society Scrutiny Review Panel and so,
subject to the Commission agreeing the recommendations of the Panel’s interim
report to be discussed later in the agenda, I shall ask Mr. Pain to follow up
this request as part of the Panel’s ongoing work.” (B) PR and
Communications “Will the
Chairman please confirm: 1. When
Westco Ltd. was originally engaged by the County
Council, with what brief, over what period and at what cost? 2. What
the original budget for this department was for the financial
year 2010/11 and what the current estimated out-turn is? 3. That
the budget for communications will be cut by 40% and indicate the anticipated
budget for 2011/2? 4. What
contracts were agreed following the failure to appoint a new head of service? 5. How
much Westco Ltd. has been paid to date and how long
their current contract has left to run and at what cost? 6. How
much the current Interim Head of Communications is being paid a month and for
how many days per week? What expenses are being paid on top of this and how
much these come to each month? 7. What
Mr. Fergus Sheppard’s current role is, for how long will it continue, and how
much he is being paid a month, including expenses and whether this falls upon
the communications budget? 8. What staff report directly to the
Leader of the Council? 9. Whether
he appreciates the irony that whilst Westco Ltd. specialises
in public relations, our association with that company has had a negative
effect upon our reputation? 10. Whether
any steps have been taken to correct any inaccuracies or misrepresentations in
the recent coverage of our PR/Communications contracts in the press? If so, what are they and what has been said? 11. When
it is anticipated the department will have a new Head of Communications and how
this is to be achieved?” The Chairman replied as follows: “I have been
provided with the following information to enable me to reply to these
questions, as I am required to do under Standing Order 7. However, this is not
an issue about which I have any direct knowledge. Therefore, should there be
any supplementary questions, I will not be in a position to reply, but will
undertake to ensure that they are passed to the appropriate officers for
response. 1.
Westco was appointed in August 2009. Their brief was to
undertake a review of the Council’s communications and marketing activities, to
assess current performance against best practice and to make recommendations
about how improvements in the effectiveness and value for money of
communications could be achieved. 2. In the year 2009/10, total Council spending on communications, marketing, design, information provision and non-recruitment advertising was £3.5m, including staffing costs in all departments and running costs. Of that £3.5m, the ‘corporate’ teams (PR Unit, Design Unit and Corporate Internal Communications) accounted for £1m. ... view the full minutes text for item 138. |
|||||||||||||||||||
To advise of any other items which the Chairman has decided to take as urgent elsewhere on the agenda. Minutes: There were
no urgent items for consideration. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda. Minutes: The
Chairman invited members who wished to do so to declare any interest in respect
of items on the agenda for the meeting. |
|||||||||||||||||||
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 under Standing Order 36. Minutes: The Chief
Executive reported that no petitions had been received under Standing Order 36. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Licences for Street Cafés. Additional documents: Minutes: The Commission considered a report of the Director of Environment and Transport concerning a response to a petition submitted by a local resident in Melton concerning the Council’s proposals to charge for street café licences. A copy of the report, marked ‘B’, is filed with these minutes. With the consent of the Chairman, Dr. M. O’Callaghan (Lead Petitioner)
addressed the Commission and made the following key points: ·
Until recently street cafes had operated without
obstruction to enhance the culture and economy of villages and towns, such as
Melton; ·
Owners of small cafés felt aggrieved at having
to pay such a relatively high price for a licence; · The proposed reduction in charge was welcomed, though the policy itself was seen as ill-conceived and impractical – particularly in respect of the siting of furniture. Greater flexibility was requested.
The Director of Environment and Transport addressed the Commission and made the following key points: ·
There was a risk that, without a stringent
policy, there would be dangers to users of the highway, particularly disabled
people; ·
The policy was operated on a “common sense”
basis and the rules contained therein were based on national best practice; ·
Each street café would be assessed on a case by
case basis and, in doing so, some of the rules within the policy in regard to
the siting of furniture were flexible, depending on the particular nature of
the particular piece of highway concerned; ·
The proposals to reduce the licence
charge would require the agreement of the Cabinet. In response to the issues raised, members made the following points: ·
Public spaces were now more occupied than ever
before and so it was essential that there was proper regulation of the highway.
However, it was welcomed that discretion was exercised in the use of the
policy; ·
It was important that disabled groups were
properly consulted as part of proposals for a street café, particularly where
the use of barriers was concerned. ·
It was felt that a ‘Light Touch’ review would be
helpful in coming to a view on the policy, particularly in respect of the
siting of furniture and consultation with disabled people. RESOLVED: (a)
That it be noted in response to concerns now
expressed that, subject to (b) below, the proposed reduction in charges for
street café licences be supported; (b)
That a ‘Light Touch’ review be established prior
to reporting to Cabinet to look at the licencing
policy to consider the issues of particular concern to the Commission, as
follows: (i)
Requirements as to the siting of tables and
chairs under the policy; (ii)
Whether it was appropriate for a license fee to
be charged regardless of the extent of the proposed use; (iii)
Arrangements to ensure engagement with disabled
people in consideration of an application. (c)
That Mrs. Page CC and Mrs. Posnett CC be nominated to serve on this review. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Review of Locally Based Voluntary and Community Sector Infrastructure Services. Additional documents: Minutes: The
Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive concerning an independent
consultant’s report on the effectiveness of locally based voluntary and
community sector infrastructure services, currently provided under separate
contracts by Voluntary Action Leicestershire (VAL), seven Community Hubs (CHs)
and three Local Resource Centres (LRCs). A copy of
the report, marked ‘C’, is filed with these minutes. The Chief
Executive reported that Mr. Honeywell, an independent consultant, had carried out
the review to establish how: ·
More
effective support could be provided to over 3,000 voluntary organisations; ·
More
cost effective arrangements could be put in place; ·
Duplication
of effort could be removed across the sector. The review
was conducted within the context of severe financial pressures, which would see
the voluntary sector budget cut from £1.5 million to around £1.1 million over
the next three years. Of this reduced budget, £1.1 million would be allocated
to VAL, £430,000 to the CHs and £30,000 to LRCs. The
Chairman invited Mr. Honeywell to address the Commission. In introducing the
report, Mr. Honeywell outlined the following key points: ·
He
had worked in the voluntary sector all his life and now worked as a consultant
providing links between the sector and the public; ·
There
were many different ‘models’ of voluntary sector support adopted across the
country and there was no single ‘right’ way of providing support; ·
The
voluntary sector in Leicestershire was strong, though there were longstanding
difficulties in regard to the way it was organised – particularly the merits of
a “Countywide Infrastructure Organisation” model (the Council had contracted
VAL to carry out this role) or a “Hub and Spoke” model. There was a clear need
to commit fully to one way of working; ·
The
voluntary sector would undoubtedly face challenges in the near future with the
impending Big Society agenda and changes in technology and levels of need; ·
Agreement
was urgently required between funders on the level of service delivery provided
and who be responsible for those services; ·
He
recommended that the “Countywide Infrastructure Organisation” model should be
pursued. Agreement in principle had been reached at a workshop organised by members
of the voluntary and community sector that this was the appropriate approach for
the future. An agreement between VAL and the CHs/LRC would be required
regarding the extent to which services could be sub-contracted from the latter
organisations; ·
The
contract with VAL was for one further year. He recommended that this contract
should be extended for two further years in order to fully embed the new
arrangements. With the
consent of the Chairman, Cllr. D. Jennings of Blaby District Council addressed
the Commission to amplify a letter outlining the Council’s comments on the
report. A copy of this letter is filed with these minutes. Cllr.
Jennings stated that the District Council had not been consulted about the
notice of termination letter. The District Council was, however, in full
support of the “Countywide Infrastructure Organisation” model. With the
consent of the Chairman, Mr. John Warren – Manager of the Lutterworth Volunteer
Centre – addressed the Commission. Mr. Warren made the following key points: ·
CHs
were ‘on notice’ that their contracts would end on 1 April. This had caused
concerns; ·
The
review was a good piece of work and there was full support for the “Countywide
Infrastructure Organisation” model, on the basis that it would allow support to
be decentralised (“subsidiarity”). In response
to questioning from members, the following points were noted: · The funding provided to VAL was for ‘infrastructure support’ and not community development/service delivery. A range of outcomes were expected of VAL as part of this contract. It ... view the full minutes text for item 144. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Report of the Scrutiny Review Panel on The Big Society. Additional documents: Minutes: The Commission considered an interim report of the Scrutiny Review Panel on the Big Society. A copy of the report, marked ‘D’, is filed with these minutes. The Chairman invited Mr. B. L. Pain CC, Chairman of the Review Panel, to address the Commission. Mr. Pain made the following key points: ·
The
report being considered by the Commission was ‘interim’ due to the demanding
timescale placed on the review which required the report to be presented
alongside the external consultant’s report on the voluntary sector (Minute 144
refers); ·
The
Panel had been unable to consult with a number of key witnesses (as outlined in
the recommendation of the report) and sought the agreement of the Commission to
continue its work in order to address these issues; ·
The Big Society concept was viewed as a
paradigm shift in government and there were a number of risks to the delivery
of services as part of this change. In response to the
report, the following points were noted: ·
The
local media would play an important role in publicising the Big Society and it
was felt that representatives from this industry should be involved in any
second phase review. Local businesses and the Chamber of Commerce were also identified
as possible witnesses; ·
Ongoing
funding was seen as important to the success of this policy. The intended
£500,000 growth bid outlined in the MTFS for the Big Society was welcomed. RESOLVED: (a)
That
the interim findings of the Panel be supported and referred to the Cabinet for
its consideration; (b)
That
the need for the Panel to reconvene in 2011 to continue its work be supported
and that the second phase of the review should focus on: (i)
The
Localism Bill and other key emerging documents; (ii)
Evidence
from various voluntary organisations, the Interfaith Forum for Leicestershire,
District and Borough Councils and County Council departments; (iii)
Consideration
of the risks associated with the effective delivery of the ‘Big Society’; (iv)
Consideration
of the measurability of outcomes; (v)
Further
information about mutuals, social enterprises and co-operatives; (vi)
Consideration
about the “rights and responsibilities” inherent in the ‘Big Society’ concept; (vii)
Engagement
with the business community. (c) That detailed terms of reference and a project plan be drafted by officers for the second phase of the review having regard to the issues outlined in (b) above. (d)
That members of the
existing Big Society Panel be asked to serve on the reconvened Panel and that |
|||||||||||||||||||
Report of the Scrutiny Review Panel on Home to School Transport. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Commission considered a final report of the Scrutiny Review Panel on Home to School Transport. A copy of the report, marked ‘E’, is filed with these minutes. The Chairman invited ·
The current method for assessing whether routes
are ‘available’ was reasonable, as the criteria for assessing routes must give
officers freedom to exercise their trained professional judgement; · In particular, the Panel felt that there should be no fixed minimum width for footpaths and street lighting should not be taken into account in assessing routes. The Panel had identified the need for a more robust appeals mechanism for people to request a route to be reassessed; · As Historic Exception services were provided free and outside of policy requirements they were no longer justified and those existing Historic Exceptions should come to an end at the end of the current academic year: July 2011; · Implementation of the new and more accurate distance mapping software should take effect from the end of the current academic year; July 2011. · Arrangements should be made for parents and schools to be advised of any changes to services at the earliest opportunity, and of alternative arrangements that may be available to them; · There was a need to provide more information to schools regarding policy, to make information relating to policy more accessible to all users (including establishing links on the County Council website) and for the County Council to continue working with schools to implement and maintain effective School Travel Plans to build on the good work which was being undertaken by schools and the County Council. In response to the report, the following points were noted: ·
The report did not make clear that the review
did not affect special school transport. It was felt that it would be helpful
to stress this point; ·
Traffic Regulation Orders should be used to
enforce no parking on zigzag lines outside of school premises; · It would be important for the Chairman of the Panel to follow up the recommendations contained within the report with the Cabinet Lead Member in September. RESOLVED:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Corporate Complaints - 2010-11. Additional documents: Minutes: The
Commission considered a report of the Director of Corporate Resources
concerning the Corporate Complaints made against the Authority in 2010-11. A
copy of the report, marked ‘F’, is filed with these minutes. The Director
reported that it was important for Scrutiny to be consulted on complaints made
in order to ensure that lessons were learnt and that there was consistency
across the Authority in responding to those complaints. It was
noted that the Adults and Communities Department and the Children and Young
People’s Service had statutory procedures in place in regard to complaints and
that a separate report was required of both departments in order that they
could report to their respective Overview and Scrutiny Committees. It was
suggested that, in future, the Corporate Complaints report would be better
dealt with at the Budget and Performance Monitoring Panel. RESOLVED: (a)
That the report be noted; (b)
That, in future, 12 monthly update reports on
Corporate Complaints should be considered by the Budget and Performance
Monitoring Scrutiny Panel and that these reports should be seen within the context
of reports relating to the operation of the statutory complaints procedures for
Adults and Communities and the Children and Young People’s Service. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Safer Communities Agreement 2008-11 - Update. Additional documents: Minutes: The
Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive concerning the updated
Safer Communities Agreement for 2010-11, which was presented to the Commission
to enable it to carry out its function as Crime and Disorder Scrutiny
Committee. A copy of the report, marked ‘G’, is filed with these minutes. The Chief
Executive reported that it was unknown at this stage whether there would be a
reduction in the Safer and Stronger Communities Fund. An announcement was
expected imminently from the Home Office. It was felt that any reduction would
have a bearing on the priorities contained within the report. A revised
version of the Agreement would be submitted to the Commission in the Spring. RESOLVED: That the
report be noted. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Work Programme Issues. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive concerning work programme issues. A copy of the report is filed with these minutes. The Chief Executive reported on progress made in respect of discussions between Prospect Leicestershire and Leicestershire Promotions. Meetings had been held between Council officers and both companies and it had been agreed to establish an interim board to make decisions on practical issues faced in the process of merging the two companies. It had already been agreed that the two companies would share back-office functions and would co-locate to Town Hall Square. The Cabinet would consider a report on the arrangements at its next meeting and it was noted that this report would be brought to the Commission’s next meeting for consideration. RESOLVED: (a)
That the proposed revisions to the Commission’s
provisional work programme for February and March, as appended to the report,
be approved; (b) That the establishment of a review panel on personalisation, together with the terms of reference outlined in Appendix B to this report, be agreed and that Mr. Max Hunt CC be nominated to serve as Chairman of the Panel; (c) That the intention to bring a report to the March meeting of the Commission on a review to look at ‘Securing the Post Office in the Digital Age’ be noted. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Date of next meeting. The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled to
take place on Wednesday 2 February 2011 at 2.00pm. Minutes: It was NOTED
that the next meeting of the Commission would be held on |