Agenda and minutes

A webcast of the meeting can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWFpwBLs6MnUzG0WjejrQtQ

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 September 2018 were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

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

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.

All members of the Commission who were also members of a District Council declared a personal interest in the reports on the Strategic Growth Plan and the Planning Obligations Policy Review (minutes 38 and 39 refer).

Mr T Pendleton CC also declared a personal interest in the Strategic Growth Plan as he was the Chairman of the Members’ Advisory Group which was overseeing its development.

Dr T Eynon CC declared a personal interest in the Annual Performance Report 2017/18 (minute 40 refers) as it made reference to Carillon Wellbeing Radio, for which she was a volunteer, and the Coalville Heritage Society, of which she was a member.

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 a report and presentation of the Chief Executive which set out the revised Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Growth Plan (SGP), which had been amended in the light of consultation responses.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 8’, and the slides forming the presentation, is filed with these minutes.

The Commission also considered a submission from the Campaign to Protect Rural England, a copy of which is filed with these minutes.

In introducing the report, the Chief Executive advised that the SGP would be a key document to help the local area plan for future development needs.  Leicester and Leicestershire were one of the only areas in the country developing a voluntary plan in this way and had consequently attracted interest from central Government and agencies such as Homes England.  He noted that the SGP was not set in stone but would be reviewed as new evidence became available and would be considered and tested through the Local Plan process at district council level.

The Commission was advised that the breakdown of consultation responses showed that 42% of respondents agreed with the key priorities and 42% disagreed.  57% of respondents disagreed with the A46 Expressway being a primary growth area.  54% of respondents agreed that Leicester should be the central city.  47% agreed with the proposals for the development of the Northern Gateway (now the Leicestershire International Gateway) whereas only one third of respondents agreed with the proposals for the Southern Gateway, which had been removed from the Plan as a result of the consultation.  A full report of the consultation findings was available on the SGP website.

Arising from discussion the following points were raised:-

(i)          The SGP had been prepared in the context of Government policy and guidance, as well as independent evidence, such as the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA).  The HEDNA was recognised as a robust and comprehensive assessment.  It was based on the 2014 housing need projections and was therefore in line with the Government’s latest guidance for calculating housing need, which were currently subject to consultation.  These figures were preferred by the Government to the 2016 projections which had only recently been published and had yet to be considered in the context of other available evidence and Government policy.

(ii)         The Commission was keen to see a review timetable built into the SGP.  Officers advised that it had always been the intention to review the Plan in the light of triggers such as updated housing need projections, but acknowledged that this had not been made explicit.  The Commission felt that clarity around the triggers for a review would provide some assurance for stakeholders.

(iii)       Concern was expressed that the response rate for the consultation was low, with only 588 responses received across Leicester and Leicestershire.  It was understood that each stakeholder had been responsible for their own consultation; however, it was suggested that the County Council should reconsider its arrangement for consultations, with a view to improving their effectiveness.  It was noted by officers that the consultation response was broadly in line with response rates for similar strategic planning documents.

(iv)       Some disappointment was expressed that there was already significant congestion in some areas, such as Coalville, but the SGP proposed further managed growth.  The Commission was assured that the SGP intended to change the recent approach to development, which had seen the addition of new extensions to existing settlements and which if continued into the future would lead to further congestion and a lack of sustainability.  In addition, a package of measures to address congestion issues  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

The Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive which sought its views on the review of the County Council’s Planning Obligations Policy as part of the consultation process.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 9’ is filed with these minutes.

The Commission noted that it was Lonek Wojtulewicz, Head of Planning, Historic and Natural Environment’s last meeting before he left the Council to take up a new post in central Government.  The Commission thanked Lonek for his advice over the years and particularly his work on the Development Control and Regulatory Board.

In introducing the report, officers explained that the Planning Obligations Policy was a corporate document to ensure that the County Council had a co-ordinated approach to applying for Section 106 contributions.  However, each department would be able to decide individually the best way of allocating the funds.

Arising from discussion the following points were raised:-

(i)    Members felt that policy was a useful and comprehensive piece of work.  The addition of adult social care contributions was welcomed and it was hoped that the inclusion of major adaptations would encourage developers to build more accessible homes in the first place.  New national planning guidance had placed emphasis on homes for the ageing population as well and the County Council could request these when responding to consultation on planning applications.  In terms of Extra Care and Supported Living developments, the Adults and Communities Department would compare the need for these types of housing with what was available to assess the level of contribution required.

(ii)   In response to a query regarding the use of Section 106 monies for extra school places, it was confirmed that the County Council sought to have trigger points in the Section 106 agreements to ensure that the building of new classrooms was timed appropriately.  It was more difficult to phase development when a new school was required.  Issues regarding Schools Admissions Policies should be raised with the Children and Families Service Department.

(iii)  Lessons had been learnt regarding travel packs, as some of the Section 106 funds allocated for these had previously had to be returned to developers.  The County Council now sought to have greater flexibility and creativity in how Section 106 contributions to public transport could be used.

(iv) The consultation would be targeted at stakeholders, such as developers.  There would also be an option for the general public to respond to the consultation online, although given the nature of the consultation it was expected not to generate much public interest and would not be widely promoted.

(v)  A view was expressed that, where Section 106 contributions were sought for libraries, these should be for community managed libraries rather than those provided directly by the County Council.  It was confirmed that the focus would be on the main libraries but this did not preclude a case being made for provision for community managed libraries.

RESOLVED:

That the comments now made be taken into consideration as part of the consultation on the Planning Obligations Policy and submitted to the Cabinet for consideration.

The Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive which presented the draft Annual Delivery Report and Performance Compendium for 2018 and sought the Commission’s views on the Annual Delivery Report.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 10’ is filed with these minutes.

Members welcomed the comprehensive report, which was also felt to be more realistic than in previous years.  The work of the Communities Team and Local Area Co-ordinators was praised, as was the recognition of high levels of sickness absence and work being undertaken to reduce it.  It was suggested the provision of affordable homes, home education of children and community mental health services for children and young people were all areas which would merit further scrutiny.

Arising from discussion the following points were raised:-

(i)                There was no official ranking of local authority performance undertaken nationally.  The LG Inform (Local Government Association) benchmarking system was generally considered to be the most reliable, however the benchmarking in the Annual Performance Report had been undertaken internally, using a variety of national data sources including LG Inform.

(ii)                Concern was expressed regarding the increase in crime.  It was recognised that this was a national issue, but there were three areas were Leicestershire’s performance was in the fourth quartile when compared with other two-tier county areas. 

(iii)                It was suggested that the increase in the number of safeguarding inquiries in care homes could relate to recruitment and retention issues in this area.  Officers would work with the Adults and Communities Department to identify whether the data demonstrated a link or not.

(iv)                It was noted that commercial investments were a major theme for the County Council but queried whether the profits recorded included staff time and whether the County Council was getting the best value for money.  It was also queried whether investment in solar energy would continue to provide value for money, given that central Government was reducing its support to the tariff.  Officers undertook to investigate these matters further.

(v)                It was confirmed that, although air quality was not addressed by the Annual Performance Report, it was both a national and a local issue and would be addressed in the forthcoming Annual Report of the Director of Public Health.  A report on air quality would also be submitted to the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee early in the new year.

RESOLVED:

That the comments now made be submitted to the Cabinet for consideration at its meeting on 23 November.

The Commission considered a report of the Director of Corporate Resources which provided an update on the 2018/19 revenue budget and capital programme monitoring position.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 1’' is filed with these minutes.

It was confirmed that the Special Educational Needs (SEN) overspend within the Dedicated Schools Budget (DSG) had increased slightly since the report considered by the Commission in September 2018.  A discussion with the Schools Funding Forum had already taken place and the plan to deal with the overspend had been broadly accepted.  More detail would be provided in the next report to the Commission.

It was noted that issues relating to rigid plastics being sent to landfill were likely to be caused by an international reduction in demand for it.  Leicestershire had not been impacted to the extent of some other local authorities.

RESOLVED:

That the 2018/19 revenue budget and capital programme monitoring position be noted.

The Commission considered a report of the Director of Corporate Resources which set out the findings of a detailed review of revenue earmarked funds and balances.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 12’ is filed with these minutes.

The negative reserve for Special Educational Needs (SEN) was expected to increase over the next couple of years, because the plan to address the overspend required investment to increase the provision of lower cost provision in the county.  Managing demand was also part of the plan and partnership with schools was key to this. The reserve was expected to achieve balance over the next four to five years.  The risk was recognised and more detail would be included in the report to the Commission on the Medium Term Financial Strategy for 2019/20 – 2022/23 in January.

The grant for Supporting Leicestershire Families (SLF) was expected to cease in 2021.  The County Council had put £2million aside to extend the programme for a couple of years.  The position would be assessed following the Comprehensive Spending Review, which was expected to clarify the national landscape.

RESOLVED:

That the review of revenue earmarked funds and balances be noted.

The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled to take place on 14 November at 10.00am.

It was noted that the next meeting of the Commission would be held on 14 November at 10.00am.