Minutes:
(A) Dr Eynon
asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“How
many onward referrals have generic parenting services funded by this Council,
such as ‘Fun and Families’ and ‘Family STEPS’ made to condition-specific services
such as ‘ADHD Solutions’ in the last financial year and how is this work
funded?”
Mr Ould replied as follows:-
“The County Council does not currently
collect data regarding onward referrals that are made by service providers in
receipt of financial resource.
The
recent review of Voluntary and Community Sector services for children and
families has highlighted the need to be more specific in its commissioning
outcomes. The new procurement
specifications will include a clear set of performance data required to measure
success against those identified outcomes.”
Dr Eynon asked the following supplementary
question:-
“I
would like to ask if Mr Ould is aware that currently ‘ADHD Solutions’, receive
no funding whatsoever from ‘Fun and Families’ or ‘Family Steps’ for taking on
children whose behaviour these services are ill-equipped to manage and does he
believe that this should continue in the future arrangements?”
Mr Ould replied as follows:-
“Clearly
we are in a position of change. The 78 organisations, who had 121 contracts,
are accepting of the current situation which has been organised by Voluntary
Action Leicestershire. On this specific point, I don’t have up-to-date
information at the moment but I will undertake to look into the matter personally.”
(B) Mr Pendleton
asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“What
are the prospects of achieving a bypass for Kegworth should the Roxhill
development not gain planning approval?”
Mr Osborne replied as follows:-
“In
that event, the prospects would appear to be extremely remote. It is very unlikely that the County Council
would have sufficient funding available to deliver a Kegworth Bypass.
Whilst
the Highways Agency was at one time proposing a new route between the A6 south
of Kegworth and the M1 at M1 J23a, this was as part of a now defunct M1
motorway widening proposal. The Highways
Agency’s preferred approach to addressing problems on the M1 through
Leicestershire would, in the main, now appear to be based on the introduction
of a SMART motorway which makes use of the hard shoulders at times of heavy
traffic flow - this is similar to schemes introduced on the M6 and M42 near
Birmingham.
There
are no other development proposals that the County Council is aware of that are
of a sufficient scale that could for that area reasonably be required to fund a
bypass.”
(C) Mr Hunt
asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“Could
the Leader:-
(i) Explain why the promised long-term
strategy for Beaumanor Hall which was expected a year ago has not been
completed and put before members?
(ii) Explain how is it that this Administration
cannot afford to run a modern museum facility when it can afford to finance a
19th Century stately home with significant overheads?”
Mr Pain replied as follows:-
(i) Unfortunately
this has been delayed by work on the Snibston review, Energy Strategy, County
Hall Masterplan and Economic Development projects. These projects are high priority and will
deliver significant savings for the County Council.
(ii) A
strategic review of Beaumanor Hall is now underway and will provide the basis
for developing a long-term strategy for this facility. This review will include a detailed analysis
of the financial performance of the facility.
It
is worth noting that in the current year, Beaumanor Hall is predicted to break
even on a turnover of £1.4m. Based on a
‘status quo’ operation, small losses of circa £30,000 will be incurred in
future years. The long term strategy
will address this position.
It
is also worth noting that following the closure of Aberglaslyn and Quorn Hall,
Beaumanor continues to provide outdoor activities for school children. In the
last year 59,000 school children attended activities at the Hall. It also employs 40 permanent and 20 casual
staff and 15 staff as part of a supported employment scheme.”
Mr Hunt asked the following supplementary
question to question (i):-
“The
first question to Mr. Pain - is he saying that work on economies on Beaumanor Hall
have been held up by the urgent cutting of a modern museum?”
Mr Pain replied as follows:-
“I am
not sure whether that was a supplementary. I’m saying what’s in the answer,
which is we have a finite amount of resources and we’ve been busy making savings
through various strategies as identified in the answer.”
Mr Hunt asked the following supplementary
question to question (ii):-
“Is he
not overlooking the fact that saying that there will be small losses of £31,000
there will be extra costs on fundamental and major maintenance and repairs to
that very old building?”
Mr Pain replied as follows:-
“I think the answer’s pretty clear. We are saying that
the Beaumanor Hall will be subject to review and we are confident that we can
turn those small losses from a £1.4m trading position around following that
review, and quite possibly turn them into surpluses. Thank you.”