Minutes:
(A) Mr
Spence asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“Leicestershire
County Council is rightly proud of our historic links with the Armed Forces.
With significantly higher
recruitment targets for our reserved armed forces the Government continues to
promote the target of 1% of all civil service staff enlisting.
Accepting that
Leicestershire County Council is not part of the civil service but a
nevertheless vital public sector employer can the Leader please advise:-
1. What
percentage of County Council staff are currently reservists in our armed
forces?
2. What
steps, if any, are presently taken by the County Council to encourage employees
to join up?”
Mr Rhodes replied
as follows:-
“1. The
County Council does not currently have a simple way of monitoring how many of
our current staff are reservists – individual line managers would have to
provide information.
2. The
County Council has a published policy on employees wishing to volunteer to
serve in Britain’s Reserve Force. That
policy indicates a commitment from the Council to provide up to 2 weeks paid
leave for employees to attend the annual training camp. I thank Mr Spence for raising this important
issue and I am happy to ask Officers to explore ways in which we can encourage
current staff to become reservists, linking to broader messages about community
engagement and involvement.”
(B) Mr Mullaney asked the following question of the Leader or his
nominee:-
“1. Is
the Leader aware that the CQC, after a recent inspection of EMAS, rated the
service “inadequate” under the “Safe” category, raising concerns over
“insufficient staff and a lack of appropriate skill mix to meet the needs of
patients in a timely manner”?
2. What
does the Leader think can be done to address this problem and what role could
this Council play?”
Mr White replied as follows:-
“1. Yes
2. The Council has a key role to play in
reducing the demand on the Ambulance Service and the wider health and care
system by helping to improve the health of the population and supporting people
to be independent. This is delivered
through involvement in the Better Care Together programme as well as the
ongoing preventative work of the Public Health, Adults and Communities and
Children and Families Departments.
I
understand that the County Council’s Health Scrutiny Committee has invited EMAS
to a meeting in June to discuss the findings and discuss the action EMAS
intends to take to address the concerns raised by the CQC. It would seem
sensible for this to happen before determining what further role the County
Council could play.”
(C) Mr
Hunt asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“1. A Strategic Review of Beaumanor
Hall was announced more than two years ago and apparently delayed due to other
priorities. In February 2015 the Council was told the Review was underway
and would include a detailed analysis of the financial performance of the
facility. Could the Leader advise:-
i) Has the review been completed and, if
so, where can it be accessed?
ii) If the review has not been completed,
when is it now due to be completed?
2. The subsidy for Beaumanor
Hall in 2013/14 was expected to be £200,000. The budgeted subsidy in 2014/15
was £80,000 but was expected to break even. The subsidy in 2015/16,
without a major intervention was expected to be about £30,000. Could the Leader update Council on the
subsidy provided for in the last three years, including major maintenance and
repairs, and that provided for in the 2016/17 budget?”
Mr Rhodes replied
as follows:-
“1. Beaumanor Hall
is now part of our new commercial trading arm, “Leicestershire Traded
Services”. We continue to believe that
we have a very valuable asset in Beaumanor Hall and
Park and we will continue to look for further opportunities to increase revenue
by providing new educational opportunities for children, by developing the
heritage offering and providing more catering, events and activities.
It was our thinking two years ago that we
would undertake a strategic review of Beaumanor Hall
and Park. We commenced the review in
February 2015 but it soon became apparent that there were three distinct areas
of activity that take place at Beaumanor and that
rather than an overall high level strategic review, each area required more
detailed ongoing analysis and focus. The
separate areas can be summarised as: outdoor activities, educational
activities, and catering and events.
We have now commenced some ongoing
operational reviews of these areas, each one underpinned by some forensic
financial analysis. Separate business
cases will soon be available.
There has been a renewed focus in opening Beaumanor Hall to the public and we are now open every
Sunday rather than on the occasional one.
Individual events go from strength to strength and the most recent of
the very successful pie nights attracted over 250 people.
We are also investing in upgrading the
Children’s accommodation for Cabins 1-4 and the Bennet Centre on site to
improve standards and capacity as residential bookings for 2016- 2017 are nearly fully taken. This investment is anticipated to generate
approximately £70,000 per annum in the long term (which is additional to the
MTFS budget position below).
The impact of recent improvements and
initiatives has meant that in 2015/16 we achieved a surplus of £120,000. We are confident that the return in the
coming year will be even more significant.
2. As the attached table demonstrates, the
outturn in the financial years 2014/15 and 2015/16 has been significantly
better than was originally predicted. In 2015/16 the budget had forecast a
subsidy of £30,000 but there was an encouraging turnaround and Beaumanor Hall made a positive outturn of £120,000. All building maintenance has been routine and
has been within budget.”
|
Beaumanor
Income and Expenditure Summary |
|||||||||
|
£000’s |
2014/15 |
2014/15 |
2015/16 |
2015/16 |
2016/17 |
2016/17 |
2017/18 |
2018/19 |
2019/20 |
|
Description |
Budget |
Actual |
Budget |
Actual |
Budget |
Forecast |
Forecast |
Forecast |
Forecast |
|
Staffing |
863 |
785 |
737 |
738 |
754 |
745 |
799 |
806 |
815 |
|
Running Costs |
624 |
575 |
601 |
550 |
578 |
558 |
563 |
586 |
609 |
|
Building Maintenance |
117 |
23 |
117 |
22 |
47 |
47 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
|
Operational Project Overheads |
13 |
13 |
13 |
13 |
14 |
14 |
14 |
14 |
14 |
|
Total
Expenditure |
1,617 |
1,396 |
1,468 |
1,323 |
1,393 |
1,364 |
1,426 |
1.456 |
1.488 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income |
-1,401 |
-1,372 |
-1,438 |
-1,443 |
-1,468 |
-1,505 |
-1,580 |
-1,659 |
-1,742 |
|
Net
Cost/(Income) |
216 |
24 |
30 |
-120 |
-75 |
-140 |
-155 |
-200 |
-255 |
Mr Hunt asked the following supplementary question:
“This is an
absolutely cracking answer to an important question and I am very pleased to
see that a report has been concluded and that some excellent figures have been
provided and I hope that the Scrutiny Committee responsible will be able to
have a look at them as well.
I have one
question of clarification, where the Cabinet Lead Member refers to the
investment anticipated to generate approximately £70,000 per annum in the long
term, I wondered if Mr Rhodes could tell us what that investment is and what
the long term is.”
Mr Rhodes replied as follows:
“Yes, we are at
the moment developing the business plans for the three types of service which
we envisage in future being provided from Beaumanor
Hall and the £70,000 is an approximate figure for the moment. Once those business plans have been developed
we will refine that figure and you will find that you will see more detail and
you will be able to examine that.”
(D) Mr
Hunt asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“Would the Leader agree that Leicestershire offers fabulous opportunities
for leisure walking and cycling and compliment the Safe and Sustainable Travel
Team for all they do to develop and promote this, in particular through the ‘choosehowyoumove’ online tools?”
Mr Osborne
replied as follows:-
“Yes, I would agree that Leicestershire offers fabulous opportunities
for leisure walking and cycling and I recognise the multiple benefits that this
brings to the County.
The County Council has a strong track record in supporting walking and cycling,
most notably in securing over £5million since 2011 through the Local
Sustainable Transport Fund to promote sustainable travel in the County. This has seen the development of the Choose
How You Move brand which provides a “one stop shop” for all sustainable travel
needs and has proved so successful that it is now being used by partners such
as the City Council. The County Council
are playing an active role, based on experience, in responding to the Government’s
new Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy which is due for publication later
this year.
This work led by the Safe and Sustainable Travel Team supported by many
others is a great example of what we can achieve.”
(E) Mr
Hunt asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“Does the Leader share my concern that traffic islands that have in some
cases been installed to give protection to pedestrians offer particular
challenges to mobility scooters and will he give consideration to how we
address this in the future?”
Mr Osborne
replied as follows:-
“The installation of dropped kerbs and pedestrian refuges (traffic
islands) is a cost effective way to provide improved crossing facilities where
formal crossing facilities could not be justified or could be potentially
dangerous due to low levels of usage.
Such facilities are primarily designed around the requirements of
pedestrians, who are the vast majority of the users of them. National standards suggest a minimum width of
1.2m for pedestrian islands. I agree
that this width is not ideal for all road users and that is why our current
practice is to install wider refuges wherever possible as they provide a better
refuge for road users than the national minimum. However, often existing road widths restrict
the width of refuge which can be provided whilst still retaining a viable value
for money scheme.
It would not be a viable alternative to change all pedestrian refuges to
formal crossings as refuges are normally installed where national guidance
suggests a formal crossing is not justified.
The guidance is clear that “caution should be exercised where pedestrian
flows are generally light or light for long periods of the day”. Drivers who become accustomed to not being
stopped at the crossing may begin to ignore its existence, with dangerous
consequences. The problems are
accentuated as vehicle speeds increase.
As such I consider that the approach of installing refuges wider than
minimum standard of 1.2m, where possible, is appropriate.”