Agenda item

Questions asked under Standing Order 7(1)(2) and (5).

Minutes:

(A)    Dr Hill asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:

 

“Can the Leader or his nominee supply the following:

 

1.         A list of holdings in terms of acreage and the capital value of County farms?

 

2.         The value of farm land sold in the last 3 years and details of what these capital receipts were spent on?

 

3.         Confirmation that the farm rental revenue is still used for re-investment in the farms or, if not, what it is used for?

 

4.         What the County’s strategy is for County farm holdings in terms of delivering LCC/LAA priorities?”

 

Dr Feltham replied as follows:

 

“1.        The County Farms Estate comprises 82 County Farms extending to 2909 hectares, one cottage and 67 hectares of woodland and other land. The Estate has an asset value of £7.2 million.

 

2.         In the past 3 years the value of sales of County Farms property was £5.98 million. The proceeds of sale accrued to the General Pool of Capital Receipts from which £468k was reinvested in the County Farms Capital Improvement Programme; the balance being used to fund other elements of the County Council’s overall Capital Programme, e.g. the library refurbishment programme.

 

3.         The revenue surpluses of the County Farms Trading Account, to which rents contribute, are used to fund the general revenue expenditure of the County Council and cannot be identified as having been spent on anything specific.  

 

4.         Whilst the primary aim of the farm strategy is to support an effective and efficient estate making a positive contribution to the Authority, it also supports a wide range of LAA/LCC priorities in the form of safer environment, thriving towns and villages, stronger communities and the economy. Examples include community benefit such as affordable housing, rural businesses and direct and indirect employment.”

 

(B)       Mr Bailey asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:

 

“1.        How many of Leicestershire County Council's School Crossing Patrol posts are currently vacant?

 

2.         How many of these posts have been unfilled for over three months?

 

               3.   (i)      Is the Leader aware that a School Crossing Patrol post at Grove Road, Blaby has been vacant for over a year, and that another Crossing Patrol post on Leicester Road, Glen Parva has been vacant since September, 2006?

 

                  (ii)     What measures does the Leader intend to take to fill these posts, since their continued vacancy leaves young children and their families at risk on a daily basis?"

 

Mr Ould replied as follows:

 

“1.        There are currently 48 vacant posts, from a total number of 152 approved sites.  However, 5 of these have patrols appointed but are awaiting CRB clearance before being allowed to take up their duties.

 

2.         All 48 have been vacant for over 3 months.

 

3.   (i)      I would like to thank Mr Bailey for bringing this information to my attention.  I was not previously aware of this.  The 2 posts have indeed been vacant for the periods stated by Mr Bailey.

 

(ii)     There have already been recruitment leaflet drops in the local vicinities of the crossing sites.  Newsletters and individual letters have been sent by the relevant schools directly to parents seeking volunteers but with no success. 

 

                           A survey of the Council’s current patrols was recently undertaken to ascertain what attracted them to the post. Many responded that their children attended the school and the hours suited their lifestyle.  This is why parents are being targeted.

 

                           Officers are planning to visit schools with patrol vacancies to speak to parents and offer information about the post of Crossing Patrol.”

 

Mr Bailey asked the following supplementary question on the reply to question 2:

 

“In view of the fact that a third of all of our Leicestershire School Crossing Patrols have been unfilled or vacant for over three months, does he not believe that there is a need to have an urgent review of the conditions of service of these Crossing Patrols and of our own recruitment processes for these posts, which are essential for children’s safety?”

 

Mr Ould replied as follows:

 

“I would not disagree with what Mr Bailey has just said.  We are looking into the issue of appointing of School Crossing Patrols.  We do labour under the fact that we pay less in the County than they can afford to pay in the City but most of the information that we get in terms of the satisfaction that people have with this is to do with the fact that they have relatives or children actually at the school.  When we have been into this in the past, before Mr Bailey in fact became a County Councillor, one of the issues at the time that caused us a loss of applicants and indeed a lot of people in post, was the arrogant, abusive attitude of motorists, many of whom were actually dropping children off at school and parked very badly on zig zag lines.  I do not honestly know how we get round that particular problem but I will undertake to go into this again and to come back to him in the future.”

 

(C)       Mr Galton asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:

 

“Could the Leader please provide answers to the following questions relating to waste management.  

 

1.         How many tonnes of waste were sent to landfill in each of the 7 district council areas during the last year for which figures are available?

 

2.         What was the average cost per tonne of disposing of this waste?

 

3.         What is the current level of landfill tax per tonne and what was the total amount of landfill tax paid by the County Council during the last year?

 

4.         Is any information available on how much landfill tax will increase by over the next few years?

 

5.         How much money will be received by the County and District Councils if the LAA target for recycling is met, how will this money be shared out and how much additional waste must be recycled to meet the target compared to current recycling levels?

 

6.         What will be the cost per tonne to this authority if the County Council incurs penalties as a consequence of the introduction of Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS)?

 

7.         Based on anticipated waste arisings and recycling levels, what is the estimated amount of waste which needs to be diverted from landfill to avoid incurring LATS penalties?”

 

Prof Preston replied as follows:

 

“1.        We have figures for 2006/07 for how many tonnes each District Council sent to landfill: -

District
Authority
Areas

MSW tonnage sent to landfill in 2006/07

District
Collected

County Council Civic Amenity Sites

Total

(tonnes)

BDC

23,144

16,326

39,470

CBC

33,200

16,405

49,605

HDC

21,960

9,154

31,114

HBBC

23,411

8,892

32,303

MBC

11,753

5,760

17,513

NWLDC

28,431

10,464

38,895

OWBC

10,782

5,313

16,095

Total

152,681

72,314

224,995

            From Wastetrac figures with PI adjustments included.

 

2.         In 2006/07 the average cost per tonne for Landfill Disposal was £19.28.

 

3.         In 2006/07 the Authority paid £4,346,114 in Landfill Tax.  This was at a rate of £21 per tonne for active waste and £2 per tonne for inactive waste.

           

            Landfill Tax has risen to £24 per tonne for active waste and remained at £2 per tonne for inactive waste 2007/08.

 

4.         From 1 April 2008 and until at least 2010/11, the standard rate of Landfill Tax will increase by £8 per tonne each year.  The lower rate applying to inactive waste will also increase from £2 to £2.50 per tonne from 1 April 2008.

This means Landfill Tax will be: -

Year

Standard Landfill Tax Rate £ per tonne

2007/08

24

2008/09

32

2009/10

40

2010/11

48

 

5.         The forecast gross tonnage increase required in Recycling and Composting to meet the LAA is approximately 25,000 tonnes.

If all the three elements of the LAA waste management target are met reward monies of £1.28m will be received. Leicestershire Together will consider where this funding will be invested along with the reward funding received from the achievement from the other 11 LAA targets. The total amount of reward funding that could be received is £15.4m. The first call on the reward funding will be the repayment of £1.4m of pump priming funding made available from the County Council to establish projects to aid the achievement of all 12 targets.

 

6.         The penalty for exceeding the landfill allowances will be £150 per tonne together with a proportion of the potential fines that would be imposed by the European Union to those member states in breach of the Landfill Directive in the target years. 

 

7.        

Year

Minimum reduction in Landfill required (nearest 10,000 Tonnes)

 

2008/09

0

2009/10

20,000

2010/11

50,000

2011/12

80,000

2012/13

110,000

2013/14

120,000

           

                        Further years’ estimates are available.  The above figures assume 2% gross waste growth; no further increases in recycling; and that no additional allowances are purchased by the County Council.”

 

Mr Galton asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Would the Leader agree with me that the recent press coverage and debate on refuse and waste has concentrated on service delivery and collection arrangements but very little has been said about the increasing financial cost of waste and, in particular, the massive bill facing the Council Tax payer if we fail to divert more waste from landfill and recycle more?”

 

Prof Preston replied as follows:

 

“I entirely agree with Mr Galton.  We are currently sitting in a position where if we do not manage to divert waste and, as you can see from the answer, in 2009/10 I think we have probably got that covered but the remainder of it gets worse as you can see.  I do believe one of the problems we have got is that there seems to be an attitude in central Government that it is the collection authorities who take most of the problems, in terms of recycling, but the County has got the problem of disposing of it.  I do believe over the course of the next nine months or so we will have a much stronger strategy to handle that, but we do need some much stronger guidance from central Government.”

 

 

(D)       Mrs Camamile asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:

 

“1.        Would the Leader care to comment on the wholly inaccurate and misleading statement contained in recent election material being circulated in the Hinckley area published on behalf of the Liberal Democrats suggesting that there were plans to close The Limes and that “Local people will be forced to move away from their families and loved ones”?

 

2.         Would he agree with me that scaremongering of this nature is not only extremely distressing to vulnerable elderly people but also brings the whole of local government into disrepute?”

 

Mr Parsons replied as follows:

 

“1.        My concern is for the people who were alarmed and misled by this irresponsible statement.   The Director of Adult Social Care and Health has indicated that managers, staff and residents were all taken aback by the report which was contrary to the information which the County Council had provided in the consultation document and at the consultation meeting at the home.  He has confirmed that it caused unnecessary anxiety, particularly for the residents.  I am grateful for the professionalism shown by the Director and his staff in responding quickly to put the record straight and reassure the people affected.

 

2.         Yes, absolutely, and I would add that if behaviour of this nature is not already against the law or the relevant codes of conduct I certainly believe that it should be.”

 

Mrs Camamile asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Does the Leader not agree that an apology would be in order from the Liberal Democrats in Hinckley to the people of the Borough who have been caused so much anxiety by all this misleading propaganda?”

 

Mr Parsons replied as follows:

 

“It was a most disreputable campaign run by the Liberal Democrats and it grieves me to say that to this Chamber.  I think a little humility on their part would go a long way to redress the balance within Hinckley.”

 

(E)       Mr Jennings asked the following question of the Chairman of the Constitution Committee:

 

“In view of the concerns expressed by Liberal Democrat and Labour Councillors at the large increase in the Basic Allowance now paid to all members, financed mainly by a reduction in Special Responsibility Payments to Conservative members, would the Leader please tell me how many Liberal Democrat and Labour Councillors have refused to accept this increase?”

 

Mr Parsons replied as follows:

 

“None.”