Minutes:
(A) Dr
Eynon asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
"What is this
Council's responsibility as Waste Authority for ensuring that the nature of the
waste material stored in the Ravenstone lagoons is
compliant with permissions given for storing and spreading? Has this Authority
assessed the impact of these activities on the surrounding towns and
villages?"
Mr Blunt replied as follows:-
“North West
Leicestershire District Council gave consent to carry out agricultural permitted
development for two clay lined lagoons on 28th November 2014 and
control over the development therefore rests with that Council.
The County Council
has not been involved in the planning approval. It has no role in this matter
and therefore has not assessed the impact of the activities on the surrounding
towns and villages.”
(B) Dr
Hill asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“1. Can the Leader please advise me of the
total number of people that were provided with homecare services, either by or
through the Council, during July 2016, before Help to
Live at Home launched, and how many people were provided with homecare services
during January this year, broken down into self-funders and non-self-funders?
2. A recent budget monitoring report presented to the Scrutiny
Commission revealed that there is a £2.6m overspend on Residential and Nursing
Care. The explanation given said it was
partially caused by the need to cover gaps in domestic care services following
the launch of Help to Live at Home by placing people in residential care in the
short term. Can the Leader please
provide me with the number of service users eligible for homecare that were
instead provided with residential care and the additional cost to the Council?”
Mr Houseman replied as follows:-
“1. In July 2016, 3,370 people received home care either directly
from the Council or commissioned from the independent sector. Of these,
503 (15%) paid for the full cost of their care. The total number
receiving care in these ways in January 2017 was lower principally due to 740
choosing to switch to a direct payment for their care and 250 full cost payers
deciding to make their own private arrangements. This resulted in 2,139 people receiving care
either directly from the Council or commissioned from the independent sector of
whom 253 (12%) were full cost payers.
2. For the period between March 2016 and
February 2017 there were 138 people placed in an interim residential or nursing
placement awaiting a package of care. During
this period the total cost of these placements was £192,300. The highest
level of interim care activity was in November 2016 with 35 people starting a
placement at a total cost of £53,900. The average number of people
starting per month has since returned to the pre-November position of
approximately 10 placements.”
Dr Hill asked the following supplementary
question:-
“I
would like to ask Mr Houseman to check his sums because I make 3,370, less 740,
less 350 and that is the starter figure, less the people who switched direct
payments, less the self-funders who have gone independent, makes 2,380, missing
241 people. Secondly, the Leader in his
statement says there were 1,619 services users, but in my reply it says 2,139.”
Mr Houseman replied as follows:-
“Thank you Dr Hill for the supplementary question.
First, can I say, as this is my last full Council meeting that I have
always respected you for being one of the most sensible, diligent and
hardworking Liberal Democrat members, and a very nice person.
In
answer to your question, a number of factors have an impact on further reducing
the overall number of people in receipt of home care by the Council. Prior to Help to Live at Home going live,
significant work was done to improve the quality of management information
about people who needed to be transferred to the new services and this resulted
in the removal of duplicate records and other records relating to people who no
longer received home care services. The
majority of cases transferring were subject to an individual review prior to
going live and in a number of cases this resulted in services being changed or
discontinued because they were no longer required. In addition, some self-funders, who we only
funded a tiny amount of their care package, decided on transfer that they would
fully fund their own care package. This
was the reason for the number of changes.”
(C) Mr
Hunt asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“Can the Leader
please advise:-
(a) Where
does our statutory duty lie with regard to gardens and hedges obstructing the
footway?
(b) If
we are not able to fulfil this in a timely and efficient way, as I have been
led to understand, what alternative approaches have been considered in non-parished areas?”
Mr Osborne replied as follows:-
“(a) The owner or occupier of a property has a legal
responsibility (Highway Act 1980 s154) to ensure that the 'public highway'
adjacent to a property is not obstructed by vegetation from their property. In addition, the Highway Authority has a duty
under Section 130 of the Highways Act to prevent, as far as possible, the
‘stopping-up’ or obstruction of the highways for which they are the Highway
Authority.
It also states that if the parish or representative community body
informs the Highway Authority of an obstruction it is the duty of the
Authority, unless it is decided that the representations are incorrect, to take
appropriate action.
Where the Highway Authority is notified of an obstruction due to
overhanging vegetation from a private property the following action is taken.
Officers will send a letter to the householder requesting them to cut
back the hedge/tree within 21 days. If
householders fail to comply with this they are then sent a further letter
giving them another 21 days. If they
still do not comply with the request, a team will be sent out to cut the
tree/hedge.
(b) Leicestershire
County Council is currently reviewing its approach to highway maintenance to
align it with the new national Code of Practice “Well Maintained
Highways”. As part of this review a
pilot has been approved which will enable the County Council
to work with parishes and community organisations to understand the feasibility
of, and appetite for, devolving a range of duties. These could range from responsibility for
inspecting and reporting to delivering some localised highway services,
including in this instance being authorised to issue the first letter to the
owner on behalf of the Council. The
outcomes of these pilot assessments will help inform how this approach could be
applied to both parished and non-parished
areas.”
Mr Hunt asked the following supplementary
question:-
“The Cabinet Lead Member is saying that parishes or
representative community bodies may inform the Highway Authority of outgrowing
vegetation obstructing the pavement, etc.
Can he tell us what sort of representative community body has the right
to instruct the Highway Authority to take action?”
Mr Osborne replied as follows:-
“Chairman, I am
just trying to find out exactly what the part in the reply the member did not
quite understand. He is asking for an
explanation rather than I think looking at the answer and understanding the
answer, but if he is still in a fairly befuddled state, I will answer him as
best I can later.”
(D) Mr
Hunt asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“Can the Leader please advise:-
(a) Where
does our statutory duty lie with regard to protecting grass verges with pegs,
bollards and other impediments for the purpose of preventing non-residents from
parking on, and destroying, those grass verges?
(b) Some
residents have been threatened with their removal thereby allowing the grass
verges to degrade. Given that the County
Council itself employs this practice and because of the extent of their use by
residents, is such an approach realistic and what alternative approaches have
been considered, particularly in non-parished areas?”
Mr Osborne replied as follows:-
(a) The
County Council’s statutory duties are to maintain the highway in a safe
condition. As such, there is no
statutory duty on the County Council as Highway Authority to prevent vehicles
parking on grass verges or, indeed, to repair damage to grass verges caused by
non-residents, residents or their visitors.
The County Council’s current operational procedure in relation to verge
maintenance can be summarised as:
Highway verges that are either damaged
through parking or over-riding will not be repaired except in the following
circumstances:
·
Where
repair or improvements of a highway verge should reasonably be included as part
of essential safety schemes (i.e. those with an accident record higher than the
national average or higher than otherwise could be expected) which are taking
place at the same location.
·
Where
repair or improvements to a highway verge should reasonably be included within
programmed works to maintain the condition of our highway network that are
taking place at the same location.
·
Where
repair or improvements to a highway verge should reasonably be included within
infrastructure improvement works aimed at delivering economic and housing
growth which are taking place at the same location.
·
Where
another authority or third party wholly funds repairs or improvements to a
highway verge.
(b) As
a result of the above the County Council does not routinely protect verges from
inappropriate parking. The use of
(typically) white painted stones by residents, is
contrary to the Highways Act and may make the resident or the authority liable
for third party damage and injuries.
However, officers take a pragmatic approach to this and will only seek
their removal where there are genuine safety concerns.
We will however work with parish councils, communities and individuals
to allow local solutions to be developed subject to appropriate agreements on
funding, liability and maintenance.”
Mr Hunt asked the following supplementary
question:-
“This is referring
to page 13 on the pink papers and in paragraph (a) the Lead Member states, and
this is referring to stones, wooden pets, and such-like protecting the grass
verges and he says that there is no statutory duty on the County Council as
Highway Authority, and then in the ensuing section, which is largely in (b), we
hear that the Highways Act, unspecified, has the requirement not to place white
states contrary to the Act on grass verges, and then goes on to say that
residents may be liable, and then it says that officers take a pragmatic
view. This seems rather confusing to any
of us here who are faced with the situation of stones, pegs or bollards to
protect green verges and I wonder therefore if the Lead Member would support
the Scrutiny Committee in the future taking an item on this to clear up the
obvious discrepancy over pragmatic action taken by officers.”
Mr Osborne replied as follows:-
“To answer Mr Hunt,
it is not my job, nor it is it within my competence to say what scrutiny should
or should not have on its agenda and I am surprised you would want to delegate
that authority to me.”
(E) Mr Charlesworth asked the following
question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“Would the Leader
please advise me of:-
1. The
full employer costs for all principal officers (Senior Management) as part of
their annual remuneration in 2015/16.
2. Any
Honoraria paid to any of the Senior Manager posts in 1 above between 2009/10
and 2015/16, including how much and to whom?”
Mr Rhodes replied as follows:-
“I have interpreted
‘senior management’ to be those Officers covered by the Annual Pay Policy
statement i.e. Chief Officers and Assistant Directors.
1. I
would refer Mr Charlesworth to the Report of the Employment Committee and the
draft Pay Policy Statement which may be found at pages 19-29 of the Council
booklet. The only additional costs are
the employer’s contributions, i.e. National Insurance payments, and employers’
pension contributions – both dictated by national regulations to the level of
salary paid.
2. I
can confirm that the only honoraria payments made to senior officers within the
stated period were to three Assistant Directors between July 2011 and July 2013
in recognition of the cover they provided whilst their Director was on
secondment for part of his time to a Government Department.”