Minutes:
(A) Mr
Charlesworth asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“1. When
did Mr Rushton become aware of allegations against Mr Parsons concerning his
payment for travel in relation to East Midlands Councils and E.U. Committee of
the Regions?
2. What
did he do about it?”
Mr Rushton
replied as follows:-
“1. I
became aware on 25th October 2011 when the Chief Executive informed
me, as Deputy Leader, that he had commissioned an internal audit investigation
and that he had informed Mr Parsons the previous day.
2. I
believed that it was right for the internal audit investigation to conclude and
report. In that circumstance there was
no action for me to take at that time.”
(B) Mr
Charlesworth asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“At the Wigston
Community Forum on the 10th September, a County Council officer said
that no further cuts in service (reduction in opening hours/staff) would happen
at the Record Office in Wigston. Can the
Leader please confirm this?”
Mr Sprason
replied as follows:-
“At the Wigston
Community Forum of 10th September staff outlined the engagement
process for seeking community views on six options for the future delivery of
libraries and museums services.
The six options
focus mainly on library services and to a smaller degree the Melton Carnegie
and Charnwood museums. The Record Office
is not included in this piece of work.
The County Council
recognises the importance of the work undertaken by the Record Office but its
position remains the same as reported to the Adults, Communities and Health
Overview and Scrutiny Committee, of which Mr Charlesworth is a member, in that
no firm guarantees can be given about budgets or likely savings reductions in
the future for any part of the Council's services.”
(C) Mr
Charlesworth asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“What community
facilities have been provided in the village of Breedon on the Hill by the
County Council since May 2009?”
Mr Pain replied
as follows:-
“Community
facilities are provided by the local primary school, St Hardulph’s C of E
Primary School, making optimum use of its facilities, which have been there
since 2009 and were, indeed, there before.
The arrangement works very well and is popular within the local
community, something confirmed to me by the local member, who holds surgeries
there. Some examples of the use of the
facility are given below:
Additionally, the community room is well
used:
and, as stated above, for surgeries by the
local county councillor.”
(D) Mr
Charlesworth asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“1. How
many complaints (letter/email/phone/in person) have Leicestershire County
Council/Tarmac received concerning the grass cutting across the County since
the end of March 2012?
2. Leicester
City Council maintained its grass to a much higher standard than the County,
what is being done to redress this appalling situation?”
Mrs Pendleton replied as follows:-
“1. The
Council’s Customer Service Centre (through which all highways-related enquiries
and issues should be directed) has identified that, between the beginning of
April 2012 and the end of September 2012, there were 992 individual customer contacts
made about grass cutting. The peak, of
328 contacts in June, coincided with the period when the weather conditions
were at their most challenging for the grass cutting operation. Even though weather conditions remained
difficult in July (when 227 contacts were made), this coincided with the period
when the additional resources brought in by the Council’s contractor enabled it
to start getting back on top of the situation.
2. The
County Council consulted the people of Leicestershire on what they considered
to be a priority service for the future.
That consultation yielded the response that less should be spent on
grass cutting. As a consequence, the
highway maintenance policy was amended to allow a reduced number of urban and
rural cuts. This summer season, the
Council’s contractor was working to the same number of urban grass cuts as had
been undertaken in 2011 but the weather conditions in 2012 were considerably
different. Had the decision to bring in
additional resources been taken earlier, then the extent of the problem
encountered across the County may have been lessened. In future years, any sustained period of
adverse weather (for grass cutting purposes) is more likely to result in
additional resources being deployed. The
County Council faces significant financial challenges ahead and increasing
grass cutting frequency will not help to address those challenges. It should be borne in mind that
Leicestershire’s grass cutting frequencies are still higher than many of its
immediate neighbours.”
(E) Mr
Houseman asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“When the Syston
Hobby Horse Estate was built, a Developer Agreement was put in place to deliver
for public access on completion of the ‘aftercare’ process land adjacent to the
A46, Glebe Way and Meadow Lane.
Restoration is complete and ‘aftercare’ completion was certified by
Leicestershire County Council in June 2008 on some of the land. Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust
have taken responsibility for part of the site.
Can I please be told what is happening to the remaining area?”
Mr Pain replied
as follows:-
“The remaining area
referred to is understood to be owned by a house building company and has not
been worked for minerals. The
restoration and aftercare objectives drawn up by the Wildlife Trust (and
approved by the County Council) state that the objective for the management of
a larger area of land, which includes this land, is to establish low intensity
grazing with thick hedges and scrub around the margins. I am not aware of any intention by the house
building company to allow public access to this land, which in any event was
subject to a legal agreement between the developers and Charnwood Borough
Council as the local planning authority.
The matter therefore rests with them.
Officers have contacted Charnwood Borough Council who have said that
they would be happy to assist Mr Houseman in what is emerging to be a
complicated legal matter.”
Mr Houseman asked the following
supplementary question:-
“A Section 52
agreement was involved which referred to part of the land being used for
recreational purposes. I agree it is
complicated but is it possible to ask the Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife
Trust to clearly sign which part now has public access?”
Mr Pain replied as follows:-
“I will undertake
to further your request.”
(F) Mr
Hunt asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“The Coalville
'Miners Gala', which is funded by Leicestershire County Council and the
National Union of Mineworkers, saw the launch of the revived 'Friends of
Snibston'. This organisation is working
with County Council staff to promote and protect the Snibston Museum and
encourage greater community involvement and volunteering. In this time of austerity, museums are at
risk of budget cuts and need all the help they can get from the bigger
society. Does the Leader join me in
supporting the Friends of Snibston in all that they aim to do for the benefit
of the community?”
Mr Sprason
replied as follows:-
“I am keen to
support Big Society initiatives such as the Friends organisation to which Mr
Hunt refers and I have attended one of their meetings to show my support. We are encouraging a number of similar
initiatives across the County where we see opportunities for the community to
become more involved in our services, particularly our cultural services
through libraries and museums. Examples
currently are Market Harborough, Melton, Quorn, Huncote and the Snibston
Friends.”
Mr Hunt asked the following supplementary
question:-
“Leicestershire
residents are very unhappy at the loss of the heritage money that perhaps we
expected wrongly. Friends of Snibston
would like to regain the lost heritage funds in some way and preserve the
museum site. What advice would Mr
Sprason give to Friends of Snibston to support their vision?”
Mr Sprason replied as follows:-
“I will respond in
the same way as I did to the Friends of Snibston when I attended their
meeting. May I say what a passionate
group they are about involving the community in Snibston. To answer Mr Hunt’s question, I told them
exactly the same, the bid was totally unsustainable into the future and we will
be looking at other options on Snibston.”
(G) Mr
Charlesworth asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“Has the County
Council ever issued more parking permits for a road than there are actual
spaces?”
Mrs Pendleton
replied as follows:-
“Presuming that Mr
Charlesworth is referring to permits for residents’ preferential parking
schemes, these are allocated on the basis of the eligibility of the household
for permits, not on the availability of spaces, and are rationed to two per
household. Schemes do not guarantee a
parking space but give preference to residents within the zone of the scheme,
which may be several streets. Residents
are also able to buy visitors’ permits.
In addition, most schemes only operate for part of the day and therefore
greater demand from residents, for example in the evenings, will be catered for
by the restrictions not applying at that time of day.”
(H) Mr
Griffiths asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“1. How
many parking tickets were issued around Ellis Park, Oadby during this year’s
Jubilee celebrations?
2. How
much revenue was made from this and how much was expected?”
Mrs Pendleton
replied as follows:-
“1. On
the 4th June 2012 seven Penalty Charge Notices (parking tickets)
were issued on Brabazon Road, outside Ellis Park, Oadby.
2. These
seven Penalty Charge Notices have resulted in fines totalling £210. No estimate is made of the anticipated number
of Penalty Charge Notices which might be issued at a particular location on a
particular date.”
(I) Mr Parsons asked the following question of
the Leader or his nominee:-
“1. Is
the Leader satisfied that the junction of Ratby Lane and Desford Road, Kirby
Muxloe is suitable for heavy goods vehicles?
2. Will
the Leader investigate the use of Station Road, Desford as an alternative lorry
route bearing in mind the Crown Crest development?”
Mrs Pendleton
replied as follows:-
“1. Earlier
this year a detailed assessment was undertaken of the mini roundabout junction
at the Ratby Lane/ Desford Road, which showed that it has a good safety
record. Our records show that there has
been just one recorded injury accident at the site in the past five years and
no accidents involving HGVs. A review of
the signing and lining at the site indicates that these are adequate for the
nature of the road layout and prevailing traffic conditions. Therefore, it is considered suitable for
heavy goods vehicles.
Given
the physical constraints of the site there is no opportunity to undertake any
significant changes to the junction layout.
Therefore, we would not propose any changes at the present time but will
keep the junction under observation.
2. The suggested use of Station Road, Desford as
a route to the M1 via the B582 is problematic in terms of road width,
alignment, general topography and capacity of junctions along its length. The view of those local businesses that we
would anticipate might use the route would undoubtedly be negative, given the
need to tackle a level crossing, a short hill, signalised junctions (including
Desford Crossroads and a sharp turn off the A47) and a notably longer
journey. Given that any change to the
designated HGV route network would also require a formal traffic regulation
order, the likelihood of a positive outcome from consultation with local
residents, businesses, parish councillors, borough councillors and local County
Councillors is negligible. Under the
circumstances, Station Road, Desford is not regarded as a viable alternative
designated HGV route to those already available.”
Mr Parsons asked
the following supplementary question:-
“Bearing in mind the huge amount of public disquiet with the Crown
Crest development, will the Leader or the Spokesman at least review or promise
a review of lorry routes in West Leicestershire?”
Mrs Pendleton
replied as follows:-
“Mr Parsons knows that I am not being awkward but ‘no’.”
(J) Mr
Parsons asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“1. Is
the Leader satisfied that adequate arrangements have been made for
infrastructure in the proposals for over 4,000 homes in Lubbesthorpe?
2. What
improvements would he make to ease traffic flow and reduce pollution?”
Mrs Pendleton
replied as follows:-
“1. Officers have been working with Blaby
District Council, Leicester City Council, the Highways Agency and the developer
for over two years to understand the implications of this proposal on the
transport network. The County Council’s integrated transport model (LLITM) has
been commissioned to forecast the impact of the development in future years
including when it would be completed. It
has also been used to test mitigation measures and the delivery of those
measures is currently being considered by Blaby District Council prior to the
determination of the planning application at its Planning Committee in
November. The County Council is satisfied
that this has been a thorough process involving all the relevant infrastructure
providers, using the most up to date forecasting tool (LLITM). In this particular instance the developer and
his transport consultant have worked well with us to ensure a robust assessment
has been completed.
2. It is important to bear in mind that it is
only possible to require the developer to mitigate the impact of the additional
traffic as a result of the development, not deal with existing conditions. In this case we have identified what is
required of the developer and will be advising Blaby District Council of this
shortly. It is a comprehensive list
including two motorway bridges, improvements to the road network, provision of
bus services and bus priority measures, traffic calming and improvements for
walking and cycling.
Officers have identified, through the
transport work completed by Blaby District Council for its LDF Core Strategy
and through the Lubbesthorpe planning application, that there is a need to
develop medium to long term plans for this quadrant of Leicestershire including
the J21 area. This work will commence
shortly and identify transport projects for future funding to deal with
existing problems.”
Mr Parsons asked
the following supplementary question:-
“Would the Lead Member agree to liaise with Leicester Forest East
Parish Council concerning the robustness of the LLITM model?”
Mrs Pendleton
replied as follows:-
“I am always pleased to liaise with the Parish Council.”
(K) Mr
Wilson asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“1. Could
the Leader please tell me what the current daily, weekly and monthly usage is
for Birstall Park and Ride?
2. How
do these figures match with expectations for the site?”
Mrs Pendleton
replied as follows:-
“1. The
monthly passenger journeys made in June 2012 were 11,995 (5,999 passengers), in
July there were 12,299 journeys (6,152
passengers) and in August 13,414 journeys (6,710 passengers). The average
weekly passenger journeys for this period were 2,949 (1,475 passengers) and the
daily average was 496 journeys (248 passengers).
2. The
figures are lower than expected as the model of use was based on a frequency of
every 10 minutes. To manage costs of the
service the frequency was reduced to every 15 minutes from the launch of the
service in July 2011 using existing resources from the Enderby Park and Ride
service. Passenger usage continues to
increase and planned promotion such as free Fridays in October, Christmas
shopping and New Year promotions will continue this increase across all three
Park and Ride sites operating into Leicester.”
(L) Ms
Newton asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“1. Which
areas of central Coalville and Loughborough are currently designated as
significant flood risks under the County’s Preliminary Flood Assessment?
2. What
responsibilities does the County Council have for ensuring that surface water
on the highway is adequately drained?
3. Are
there currently any outstanding works to achieve this in Loughborough and
Coalville?”
Mrs Pendleton
replied as follows:-
“1. The
Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment process identifies areas of 1km2
where there is an annual risk of 1 in 200 of floodwater up to a depth of 100mm
and where in the area identified there are:
- more than 200
residents
- more than one
critical service
- more than 20
non-residential properties.
Most of Loughborough and Coalville (including Greenhill) fall into this
category. Details were shown in the Cabinet
papers of 14th June 2011.
This does not by any means suggest that most properties are at risk – it
does mean that, somewhere within a kilometre square, there is a risk of
flooding.
As Lead Local Flood Authority, the County Council is developing a
Surface Water Management Plan for Loughborough, which has involved data
collection and detailed modelling. This
exercise will identify in detail where the greatest risks are and suggest
possible mitigation measures.
A Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for the whole County is being
developed which will include the identification of other detailed areas in need
of flood mitigation. Local communities
will be involved in the development of the strategy – providing information and
identifying areas of concern. This
process will also involve the identification of a programme of schemes.
2. The
Highways Act 1980 empowers the County Council to construct drainage systems for
the purpose of draining surface water from adopted highways. The Act also places a general responsibility
on the County Council for the maintenance of adopted highways. This will include any constructed highway
drainage systems up to their discharge point, which could be into a main sewer,
river or stream.
3. The
exceptionally wet weather during this summer highlighted drainage problems at a
number of specific, isolated locations across the County. Some of these will simply involve the
clearing of debris from gullies or minor repairs. However, some will be
underlying drainage problems that would not have been apparent under normal
weather conditions, including some that are the responsibility of Severn Trent
Water. Additional resources have been
commissioned to enable these to be investigated and resolved in the shortest
time possible. Priority is being given
to those areas where flooding has caused a road safety issue or has led to the
flooding of properties. It is worth
noting that much of the localised flooding experienced at both Loughborough and
Coalville (where a month’s worth of rain fell in two hours on 28th
June) cleared fairly quickly once the heavy rainfall had subsided.”
Ms Newton asked the following supplementary
questions:-
“I am pleased to
see that we are going to develop a Surface Waste Management Plan for Loughborough,
because Loughborough has suffered badly from flooding over the summer, but I
wonder if we could see the results of this exercise as it would help local
councils enormously? In terms of
Coalville, properties in Central Road Coalville were flooded to a depth of
450mm on Monday, 24th September and part of the problem was due to
insufficient highway drainage capacity, what will the Lead Member do to
mitigate this problem in the future?”
Mrs Pendleton replied as follows:-
“All Members will
be provided with copies of the outcome of the Surface Waste Management
Plan.
We now have a
preliminary flood plan in place and both Loughborough and Coalville are well on
our radar. Rosita Page, who is our
representative on the Flood Defence Committee, has just been speaking to me
about the problems in Loughborough and in Coalville. We now have Nick Rowe, who is our officer in
charge, and together we are looking into the effects of flooding in
Loughborough and Coalville and the mitigation that we might be able to put in
place.”
(M) Mrs
Camamile asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“Would the Leader
please advise me of the approach being taken by Hinckley and Bosworth Borough
Council to have the necessary transport modelling undertaken for the proposed
SUEs (Sustainable Urban Extensions) at Barwell and Earl Shilton, and what
transport mitigation matters are proposed?”
Mrs Pendleton
replied as follows:-
“Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council’s adopted Core Strategy
identifies the development of the Barwell and Earl Shilton SUEs as means of
meeting housing requirements, supporting Hinckley as a sub-regional centre and
supporting the regeneration of Earl Shilton and Barwell. The Core Strategy also identifies that the
mechanism for ensuring that the SUEs are well designed, properly serviced and
act as a catalyst for regeneration, is through the preparation and adoption of
an Earl Shilton and Barwell Area Action Plan.
This requires the Council to provide detailed evidence on the
implications of growth in the Borough including the proposed SUEs at Barwell
and Earl Shilton. We advised that the
County Council’s integrated transport model (LLITM) should be used for this
purpose and that the Borough Council would need to commission this work.
The modelling is complicated in that it is not a single SUE but split
between the two settlements of Barwell and Earl Shilton. There is a need to understand the interaction
between these significantly enlarged settlements in the future and to
masterplan carefully the developments, so that they minimise the impact on the
transport network and local services and infrastructure. There is also a draw towards the A5 and North
Warwickshire, which has involved the Highways Agency and Warwickshire County
Council. It is further complicated by
the fact that there is no single developer that we are dealing with and the
developers are reluctant to wait until the Borough Council have completed the
Strategic Transport Assessment to support the Area Action Plan (AAP) before
progressing individual planning applications.
Instead of commissioning LLITM themselves, the Borough Council has
jointly commissioned this with the various developers for their Strategic
Transport Assessment and for the developers’ planning applications. This has proved very difficult and time
consuming for the County Council, with no clear client for the modelling and
complex communication lines. Without the
completion of the Strategic Transport Assessment, which will identify the
overall transport mitigation for growth in the Borough, it is difficult to
determine what the impact and mitigation measures from each individual site
will be.
At present the modelling has not been advanced to a stage where
mitigation measures have been tested and, therefore, I am not able to say what
is proposed. Hinckley and Bosworth
Borough Council is currently discussing a timetable with the developers and
various consultants to determine a date when the transport work will be
completed to such a stage that the Area Action Plan can proceed and they will
be in a position to consider subsequent planning applications at their Hearing
Committee. The Area Action Plan will be
a key basis upon which planning applications are determined, as any development
must be in conformity with it.”
Mrs Camamile
asked the following supplementary question:-
“In light of the importance of the Area Action Plan to guide
development in both Barwell and Earl Shilton, particularly in relation to
infrastructure provision to ensure that existing and new communities are
sustainable and well serviced, can the Lead Member confirm that the County
Council has made sufficient representations about what is needed from its other
services and other responsibilities?”
Mrs Pendleton
replied as follows:-
“The County Council was invited and participated in Hinckley and
Bosworth’s programme relating to the development of the Earl Shilton and
Barwell Area Action Plan and master planning and made an input across County
service areas. Additionally, technical
responses have been submitted to Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council in
response to the planning application for the Barwell SUE. These, in addition to the highway comments
already stated, comprise requests for developer contributions in relation to
increasing the capacity at Barwell Household Waste Recycling Centre, provision
of additional space at Barwell Library, the provision of a new Primary School
and contribution towards Secondary School provision which will be required as a
result of both the Barwell and Earl Shilton developments. As Mineral Planning Authority, the County
Council has identified the potential for the development of sterilised sand and
gravel resources. Whilst the developer
has claimed that these resources are economically unviable no evidence has been
provided to satisfy the County Council’s concerns. Initially a number of ecology issues were
raised by the County ecologist but these are being satisfactorily addressed as
part of the application process.
Similarly, whilst archaeological and heritage represents a significant
consideration in the construction of the proposals, the Council’s archaeologist
is satisfied that sufficient consideration has been given to the implications of
the scheme upon the historic environment to inform determination of the
proposals and is satisfied that the development could go ahead subject to
conditions to secure a staged programme of archaeological mitigation. I think given the importance of this planning
application and the strategic relationship between it the Earl Shilton SUE and
Hinckley Town, I consider that members may very well welcome a full report and
discussion on these proposals via the County Council’s Cabinet with advice from
its Development Control and Regulatory Board.”
(N) Mr
Wyatt asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“1. I
am concerned about the number of drains in the Warren Hills Electoral Division
which have been, and in some cases are still, blocked due to neglect by the
County Council and the impact this is having in terms of properties which have
been flooded. Can I therefore have an
update on progress on drain clearance in this area?
2. Could
I be given an assurance that steps will be taken to ensure that proper
monitoring and regular maintenance of drains takes place in future?
3. I
am particularly concerned about flooding around Kingfisher Close, Meadow Lane,
Abbotts Oak Drive and Oakham Drive which has continued to plague a number of
residents over the summer, and I believe urgent attention is required to tackle
the present inadequate road drainage.
Could the Leader ensure that appropriate steps are taken to ensure that
these problems are resolved?”
Mrs Pendleton
replied as follows:-
“1. Highway
drainage is an area of activity that has historically not received as much
attention nationally (as well as locally) as it should. On the basis of the scale of the problem, the
Council allocated an additional £250,000 in both 2008/9 and 2009/10 to start to
tackle highway drainage problems.
Further to the Pitt Report of 2007 and the emergence of the Flood and
Water Management Act 2010, the Council concluded it would provide the extra
£250,000 on an ongoing basis. This
funding has been used to tackle a host of drainage related issues, including
the effectiveness of existing surface water systems. Part of this has been a re-evaluation of the
previous gully cleansing operation and the need to gather comprehensive
information to ensure the timely clearance of road gullies, some of which fill
more frequently than others. The
exceptionally wet weather during the summer has increased the drainage workload
considerably, particularly as high levels of silt and debris have been washed
into gullies and blocked them. It has
also identified underlying drainage problems at some locations that would not
have been apparent under normal conditions, including those in the main sewers,
which are the responsibility of Severn Trent Water. Part of the £2million additional funding
allocated at Cabinet on 23rd July 2012 for highway maintenance is
being used to address these problems.
2. Extensive
data gathering has commenced due to the aforementioned investment. Leicestershire Highway Operations (LHO)
normally deploys four cyclic gully cleansing vehicles and one reactive
jetter. LHO is roughly half-way through
an 18-month programme designed to identify the optimum frequency for cleansing
highway gullies. This involves using
computer software on the vehicles recording the location and condition of every
gully in the County each and every time the cleansing process commences. By analysing the data from this computer
software, the optimum frequency can be calculated to ensure that the operation
is as effective and efficient as possible.
3. Additional
resources were recently commissioned to enable the recent flooding issues to be
investigated and resolved in the shortest time possible. This includes two
additional jetter vehicles to supplement the one already deployed on reactive
works. This has allowed the cyclic gully
cleansing vehicles to continue with their normal routine work, thereby avoiding
future problems. Priority is being given
to those areas where flooding has caused a road safety issue or has led to the
flooding of properties. Those extra
resources have been deployed in the locations mentioned and residents have
noted the Council’s intervention.
Long-term solutions for areas subjected to regular flooding are being
researched and investigated for affordable solutions but this will always be
problematic in low-lying areas where surface water discharges to local brooks,
streams and rivers.”
(O) Mr
Bailey asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“1. Is
the Leader aware that:-
a) More than two thirds of all road deaths
take place on rural roads?
b) The coalition government is consulting on new guidance
which would allow local authorities more flexibility in imposing speed limits
on country lanes?
c) The road safety Minister said the new guidance of
“40mph limits on country lanes should be considered for sections of rural roads
where there are many bends, junctions or accesses”?
d) Hospital Lane, Blaby, closely matches the Minister’s
definition of a suitable country lane that might benefit from the new
proposals?
e) On September 4th police stopped and fined a
total of 66 motorists for various offences during an enforcement operation to
tackle road safety on Hospital Lane and Winchester Road, Blaby?
2. In
the light of this and the concerns of local residents about this busy and
dangerous country lane, can the Leader indicate what action is being taken by
the County Council to address the matter?”
Mrs Pendleton
replied as follows:-
“1. The
County Council is active in pursuing road safety improvements and detailed
reports on the accidents and casualty situation in the County are produced on
an annual basis. We are fully aware of
the figures quoted by Mr Bailey but it is worth noting that fatalities on
Leicestershire’s roads have been at historically low levels for the past three
years.
The Government’s draft guidance on speed limits offers nothing new to
local traffic authorities, as we have always been able to impose lower speed
limits where they are the most appropriate means to tackle proven road safety
problems. Lower speed limits are only of
any value if they are complied with, so we work extensively with the Police to
ensure that any limits we propose are sensible.
We are aware of the Police operation that picked up 66 offending
motorists. This was part of the “Fatal
4” campaign that targeted drink driving, failure to wear a seat belt, using a
mobile phone whilst driving, as well as speeding. The Road Safety Partnership’s campaigns focus
on a wide range of dangerous behaviour, not solely on speed.
2. The County Council is aware of the safety
concerns on Hospital Lane and it is currently planning to undertake an accident
investigation of the site in 2013/14.
The investigation will look to identify potential remedial measures to
improve the accident record at the site and will pick up on the issues raised
by the recent Police enforcement operation.”
(P) Mr
Hunt asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“With the increased
interest in cycling what measures are available to the County Council for
increasing safety on roads likely to be used for journeys to work and
recreation?”
Mrs Pendleton
replied as follows:-
“The County Council
and its partners introduce numerous measures to increase safety for
cyclists. The measures involve extensive
training, promotion and physical infrastructure. For example:
Bikeability
training level 1 and 2 is now offered free to all year 5 and 6 pupils. Free adult cycle courses are available
throughout Leicestershire with over 300 adults taking part this year. Specific bike to work training and winter
cycling courses are also now being offered.
The
County Council works with partners such as Sustrans, Future Cycles, British
Cycling and Leicestershire and Rutland Sport to promote cycling. The use of instructor led cycle ride
programmes, cycle challenges and school star rider initiatives all encourage
and promote safe cycling.
Approximately
£2million will be spent introducing cycle facilities in Loughborough and
Coalville over the next three years. In
addition, accident trends involving cyclists will continue to be monitored and,
if appropriate, action taken to address these.
The
County Council has recently been successful in winning £4million of additional
funding from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund. Numerous measures supporting safe cycling
will be funded from these additional monies.”
(Q) Mr
Hunt asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“1. Has
the Leader considered greater use of Quality Bus Contracts under the Transport
Act 2000?
2. What
opportunities does it offer to improve the operation of Leicestershire’s public
transport network?
3. What
progress is being made on the OneCard ticketing system in Leicestershire?”
Mrs Pendleton
replied as follows:-
“1. The
use of Quality Contracts was amended by the Transport Act 2008 which gives
statutory guidance on Quality Contract Schemes.
Such an approach is always an option open to any local authority where
it believes that bus services are not provided reliably and at frequencies and
fares that do not meet the needs of local residents, employees and
visitors. The local authority can
specify the levels and patterns of services along with fares. A Quality Contract is therefore likely to
require public funding if it requires higher service levels than currently
commercially provided in an area. There
are also a number of 'public interest' tests before such a contract can be put
into place around local service provision.
Local authorities have powers under the 1985 Transport Act to procure
such services as they feel are necessary to provide access. Leicestershire currently spends in excess of
£3 million in subsidising services across the County. The
County and City Councils are part of the Central Leicestershire Quality Bus
Partnership, two other partnerships cover Loughborough and Hinckley, and
working with bus partners we have been able to secure funding and/or deliver
smart ticketing, real time passenger information, better bus area funding for
the A426 corridor and newer low floor bus fleets.
2. Networks
can always be improved but such improvements, if not commercially viable, will
increase the levels of public subsidy required to provide these enhancements.
3. The
OneCard smartcard ticketing system has now been rolled out to all Leicester and
Leicestershire concessionary pass holders.
Most bus operators' electronic ticket machines will be able to read
these 'smartcard' passes by Spring 2013.
Arriva are looking to implement commercial products on smartcards for
their services as part of the A426 Better Bus Area Fund corridor improvements
by Spring 2014 at the latest. Other
local bus companies are also working towards having similar commercial products
for their services. The current Flexi
ticket will migrate to smartcards.”
(R) Mr
Bill asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“Does the Leader
agree with me that the County Solicitor has done an excellent job in the
preparations for the foundation of the Police and Crime Panel, and does he also
agree that it is crucial that there is continued engagement with County
Councillors on the strategic direction of policing in Leicestershire?”
Mr Orson replied
as follows:-
“I am very pleased
that the County Council has taken the lead role in establishing and servicing
the Police and Crime Panel and I believe that the other local authorities in
the Police area are also appreciative of the lead we have taken. I do wish to support the comments made about
the County Solicitor, but would also wish to include my thanks to the Head of
Youth Justice and Safer Communities and Democratic Services staff for their
hard work.
It is important for
County Councillors to understand the strategic direction of policing in
Leicestershire. The Police and Crime
Commissioner will play a leading role in setting that direction through the
Police and Crime Plan and I hope that all members will join with me in
encouraging a good turnout at the elections for the Commissioner.
Every County
Councillor has a responsibility to understand the strategic priorities of the
Constabulary and how these are applied at patch level.
I do agree that
community engagement is crucial. This
can be achieved through membership of the Police and Crime Panel and the
Community Safety Partnerships both at District and County level and through the
statutory responsibilities of Scrutiny in regard to Crime and Disorder issues.”
(S) Mr
Hunt asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“1. Last
July, Charnwood Borough Council’s Head of Planning reported a "difference
of opinion between Leicestershire County Council and the Highways Agency
regarding the transport model adopted by the County Council" which he said
was the cause of further delays to Charnwood's Core Strategy. Is the Highways Agency now completely
confident that the Leicester and Leicestershire Integrated Transport Model
(LLITM) is correctly modelling traffic on the Strategy Road Network and
specifically on the A46 and M1 between Junctions 21 and 24?
2. If
work is still on-going between the Highways Agency and Leicestershire County
Council what is the nature of the on-going concerns?
3. Is
the Leader aware of widespread suggestions that the LLITM is understating
traffic projections?
4. Does
he believe such assertions are due to an ambitious assumption on the take-up of
public transport, cycling and walking to work, or the use of minor roads to a
capacity not anticipated previously?
5. What
does he say to the suggestion that traffic flows are seriously under-estimated,
for example by applicants for the Lubbesthorpe application (BDC: 11/0100/1/OX)
as follows:
a) traffic measurement in Enderby on Mill
Hill during peak hours in 2012 show that the traffic flows already exceed that
projected by LLITM for 2026, by 12%,
b)
traffic counting by a road safety sign in Huncote installed by the Parish
Council showed the actual traffic to be twice that predicted by LLITM,
c)
peak traffic flow counting on the A5460 in Enderby showed a large excess over
that predicted by the LLITM for this time?”
Mrs Pendleton
replied as follows:-
“1. Officers
have been working with the Highways Agency (HA) regarding the implications of
growth in Leicestershire on the transport network and the use of LLITM for a
number of years. Although they were
initially concerned about its use they approved the model for the Charnwood
Core Strategy on 3rd of August 2012 following further work with our
officers.
2. The
HA has no outstanding concerns with the model.
It is now working with the County Council as part of a technical group
tasked with updating the model to take account of new data and improve its
performance.
3. I
am aware of concerns about the performance of LLITM which was considered by the
Scrutiny Commission on 5th September. The model has been built to the standards set
by the Government and is the only tool able to help us predict the implications
of growth in future years. I would
remind you that it has been successfully used to support bids to the Department
for Transport for Loughborough Town Centre Improvement Scheme, the Local
Sustainable Transport Fund and the Better Bus Area Fund.
4. LLITM
uses a common set of national assumptions about the future in relation to fuel
prices, public transport fares, economic growth, value of travel time, car
ownership, vehicle engine technology and fuel efficiency.
The outputs of all models are influenced by these assumptions together
with other assumptions made for the particular scheme, strategy or policy. Therefore I do not believe that LLITM is
based on ambitious assumptions about the future.
5. It
is difficult to comment on the examples mentioned without knowing the full
details. However, LLITM is a strategic
model with over 22,000 links and associated junctions represented in it. There will be occasions when it does not
accurately reflect the flows on every link and care needs to be taken by users
when this is identified through using the model. Users are advised that a local validation
review be completed prior to using the model to identify any anomalies that may
need to be dealt with before use.”
Mr Hunt asked the following supplementary
questions on the reply to question 3:-
“The Lead Member
is aware of concerns and we have heard already about Lubbesthorpe, Barwell and
she will be aware of Loughborough, Birstall and Coalville problems, and yet she
says this is the only tool the available to help us predict the implications of
growth. Does she not accept that resting
all of these plans on only one tool puts at risk a large number of projects
should that one tool prove not up to the task?”
Mrs Pendleton replied as follows:-
“This is a
computer model and it is the most up to date model that is available to us and,
as my reply says, that has been successfully used to support a wide range of
applications and is being used very successfully, so I am afraid I do not agree
with your supposition.”
Mr Hunt asked the following supplementary
question on the reply to question 4:-
“On question 4,
would the Lead Member accept contributions in her position statement on this
matter?”
Mrs Pendleton replied as follows:-
“Not today I
won’t.”
Mr Hunt asked the following supplementary
question on the reply to question 5:-
“This continues
the theme that there is a lot of concern about the LLITM model and the answer
to question 5 says there will be occasions when it does not accurately reflect
the flows on every link and care needs to be taken by users when this is
identified through using the model. Does
the Lead Member agree that this tells me and, I think, any reader, that it is
not a reliable system and saying basically you have got to be careful because
it may not comply with what people actually experience?”
Mrs Pendleton replied as follows:-
“This is a
computer model and when we have large developments Mr Hunt knows very well that
they are backed up by counts on the road and then that is also fed into the
computer model, so it says here users have to take care and actually match what
is in the model with what is on the ground and work it out accordingly. You don’t just expect to get one answer. The developers have transport consultants who
are working for them and they work alongside us. We don’t just use what we see in the LLITM
computer model, we work with them on things that are happening on the ground as
well and if they need altering then obviously we will alter them.”
(T) Mr
Miah asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“1. Will
the Leader join me in congratulating Leicester University on the archaeological
dig revealing the likely remains of King Richard III?
2. Would
he agree with me that if confirmed the King’s remains should be interred in
Leicester Cathedral?
3. Will
he consider working jointly with other stakeholders, including the City
Council, to develop the story of Bosworth using the expertise of our team at
the County Council?”
Mr Sprason
replied as follows:-
“1. We
are very pleased about the recent excavation led by Leicester University and
the potential connections which this work can make with Bosworth
Battlefield. The publicity which the
University’s work has generated has provided a reminder to a national and
international audience about the Battlefield exhibition and heritage
collections.
2. It
is my personal view that Leicester Cathedral would be a fitting location for
the King’s remains.
3. Whatever
the outcome of the specialist DNA and other work which is now taking place,
there will be an important story to tell about the journey which Richard took
from Leicester to Bosworth and then the return of his body back to Leicester
after the battle. Such a trail can only
be developed in partnership with Leicester City Council, the University and the
Richard III Society. I would be pleased
for our officers to play a key role in that work, using our museum, collections
and expertise, in particular, at Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Centre.”
Mr Miah asked the following
supplementary question on the reply to question 3:-
“I think there is an
opportunity here to make more out of tourists coming into Leicestershire and
can I ask the Lead Member in his answer to part 3 of the question if
Leicestershire would take the lead in forming a working group to take this
forward so we do join what happened in Bosworth and the resting place in
Leicester together?”
Mr
Sprason replied as follows:-
“I just want to add I am
following Richard III on twitter. I did
visit the site and we have with officers been discussing the matter with
Leicester City because it is a fantastic opportunity. Obviously I want to keep Richard, if it is
Richard, in Leicester because that is good for tourism. We will have to fight the Yorkists to achieve
that. We are talking to Leicester City
Council and all I would add is that it takes two to tango.”
(U) Mr
Miah asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“1. With
changes to Council Tax Benefit due to come in from April 2013 can the Leader
indicate what is the level of Council Tax Benefit paid out by all the
administrating districts in Leicestershire and, of that, how much is
attributable to Leicestershire County Council's precept?
2. What
is the reduction in monetary terms of a 10% cut in funding of Council Tax
Benefit from 2013?
3. How
is the Council working with and what support is it offering district councils
to ensure that arrears levels do not increase in terms of collection of Council
Tax?
4. If
arrears in Council Tax were to increase by 1% across Leicestershire what would
be the monetary impact of this to the Council?”
Mr Rhodes
replied as follows:-
“1. The
amount of expenditure on Council Tax Benefit in 2011/12 was £34.8m.
The
amount attributable to the County Council’s precept was £25m.
2. The
10% funding cut equates to around £2.5m for the County Council element and
£3.5m overall.
3. The
County Council is working closely with the District Councils on this
issue. This involves County officers taking
part in partnership workshops and meetings, providing funding to pay for a
jointly appointed programme manager and being part of the programme
management. The recent response to the
District Councils’ consultation on Council Tax Benefit made the point that we
believe that use should be made of the new flexibilities on empty property
exemptions to reduce the impact of the benefit changes; this in turn should
limit the incidence of bad debts. We are
also supportive of the principle of establishing (and jointly funding) a
Council Tax Benefit hardship fund that will be available to residents who are
having great difficulty paying their council tax bills. This also should reduce bad debts. However, to some extent it is inevitable,
because of the nature of the national changes that the level of council tax
debt will increase.
4. Around
£2.4m.”
Mr Miah asked the following supplementary
question:-
“Does the Lead
Member agree with me that with these cuts in Council Tax Benefit inevitably
will fall on the poorest in Leicestershire and that national Government is
getting local government to do its dirty work.”
Mr Rhodes replied as follows:-
“Certainly this
will fall on those who receive benefits.
We haven’t yet worked out, that is, all the District Councils working
with the County Council, how that is going to happen. The degree to which it will affect people has
not been worked out. I think it would be
scaremongering to say that this is going to be really hard because the
intention is to provide a mechanism to encourage people back to work and
ultimately that will be the case. So, at
this moment in time it is not fully worked out.”