Minutes:
(A) Question by MR HUNT
“1. Now that the Government is looking for new radioactive waste disposal sites (or Geological Disposal Facilities) is it possible that the northern area of the county, the Widmerpool Gulf, will be considered?
2. What protection does our Minerals and Waste Local Plan offer to those concerned in our county should a site be identified within range?
3. Given that the Plan states that “as Leicestershire is not a source of low level radioactive nuclear waste and the emphasis for managing this waste is for it to be managed as close to its source as possible” does this also apply to the higher level nuclear waste that will shortly be under consideration?
4. Will Cabinet be considering the DEIS draft National Policy Statement for Geological Disposal Infrastructure which will govern the burial of nuclear waste and which is out for consultation?”
Reply by MR RUSHTON
“1. The
Government is undertaking consultations on the “National Policy Statement (NPS)
for Geological Disposal Infrastructure - Implementing Geological Disposal” and
also on “Working with Communities – Implementing Geological Disposal”.
The
first (the NPS) sets out how a specific facility proposal will be assessed for
consent once an application is made for a Development Consent Order which is to
be dealt with by the Secretary of States under the Nationally Significant
Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) process.
In other words, they will not be dealt with by local planning
authorities.
The
second (Working With Communities) sets out a proposed
policy on how communities should be involved in siting a geological disposal
facility for higher level radioactive waste and how areas would be selected for
consideration. The Government is
proposing that before an area for geological disposal would be considered the
local community would have to support the facility. Only then will the geological suitability of
the proposed area be investigated.
2. A
proposed geological disposal facility will be required to go through the
Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) process. This process will be guided by the National
Policy Statement (NPS) which you refer to and is being consulted on. The NSIP process is administered by the
Planning Inspectorate and is outside the Local Plan process. The Minerals and Waste Local Plan policies
would be relevant in respect of general policies for environmental and
community protection but they could not make specific policy on geological
disposal of radioactive waste. The County
Council would be involved as a consultee in the NSIP process for a proposed
facility either if it were proposed in Leicestershire or an adjoining area.
3. No
areas will ‘shortly be under consideration’ as you suggest in your question
3. At this stage nowhere in the country
is either ruled in or out as a potential location and the Government is
commissioning work to assess which areas may be more or less geologically
suitable to host a deep geological disposal facility.
4. The
safe management of radioactive waste is an important and serious matter for the
nation as a whole. The draft NPS is a
technical document setting out what the Secretary of State and Planning
Inspectorate should take into account when determining development consent
applications including impacts and mitigation.
The Working with Communities consultation is about defining communities,
their engagement and the role of local authorities. The two consultations are inextricably linked
and both request responses by 19th April 2018. The Cabinet will be considering an
appropriate response.”
Mr Hunt asked the following supplementary
question:
“Thank you very much Chairman. I refer to answer 3 on the second page which states that “nowhere in the country is either ruled in or out as a potential location” for nuclear waste dumping and the Government is commissioning work to assess which areas might be suitable. Bearing in mind that Cumbria County Council has already rejected nuclear waste dumping and that this area of North Leicestershire has already been identified in the past for nuclear waste and there are now cash incentives for burial of nuclear waste, what role will the local people and particularly this Council have in determining such applications?”
Mr Rushton replied as follows:
“Thank you Max for your supplementary question. Unfortunately I won’t be able to provide you with a supplementary answer right now but I will write to you and let you know.”
(B) Question by MR BILL
“For some months I have been expressing concern about the impact of the proposal for a 780 acre freight depot on the Burbage, Stoney Stanton and Sapcote area.
Stoney Stanton SDA is a proposal to consider the use of 50 hectares of County Farm land in the Stoney Stanton and Sapcote areas for future development, which will of course be in addition to the freight depot proposal.
Will the Leader agree that the affected communities have the right to be engaged before work proceeds on the potential use of this land?”
Reply by MR RUSHTON
“The County Council
is aware of developer interest in land in the Stoney Stanton and Sapcote area where the Council owns land. Mr Bill may want to raise his concerns about
community involvement with the Local Planning Authority although an application
for a depot of the scale indicated would be deemed a nationally significant
infrastructure project and determined nationally, albeit with local
consultation. I am grateful to the
Leader of Blaby District Council for his advice on this matter”
(C) Question by MR BRAY
“Can the Leader give me an update on progress towards obtaining a new school crossing patrol outside St Peter’s School in Hinckley?”
Reply by MR PAIN
“The school crossing patrol site outside St Peter’s School still
remains vacant. There are
vacancy boards placed at the school, and the school have sent out several
letters asking if anyone in the local community would be willing to come
forward to fill the role.
The Council received an enquiry in September and another was received
just last week. Application forms were
sent out to those individuals and we are waiting for completed forms to be
returned. If and when we do receive an application, this will be
assessed, hopefully leading to an appointment.
In the meantime we will continue to actively advertise this vacancy.”
(D) Question by MR KAUFMAN
“Is the Leader aware
of problems finding a local school place faced by families that move into Oadby
mid-term?
Does he agree that a
review of the School Admissions Code is long overdue and support my call for the
Government to commence with one?”
Reply by MR OULD
“I am aware that
the success and popularity of the Oadby secondary schools means that there is
significant demand for available places. In practice this means that all
available places are taken up by applications submitted within timescales for
year 7 or year 10 places. The challenge presented is for parents seeking places
outside of this process i.e. after the closing date or for pupils in other year
groups. These are known as mid-term applications and will often arise where
families move into an area.
As academies, each
of the three secondary schools is responsible for setting its own admission and
catchment arrangements, nevertheless our officers have raised concerns with the
Reginal Schools Commissioner and met with schools to seek to encourage a review
of their admission arrangements to ensure stronger partnership working so that
Oadby residents have access to local school places.
It is worth
emphasising that there are sufficient places across all of our secondary
schools, to meet demand from Leicestershire families and this includes Oadby.
However, in keeping with other successful schools elsewhere, there is a high
demand for places from families in neighbouring authorities and those living outside
the catchment area.
The national School
Admissions Code was issued in December 2014. Importantly, the current Code prohibits Local Authorities from reserving
school places to help manage mid-term applications, or discriminating against
any applicant from another local authority area. If a place is available then
it must be offered. The National Code aims to promote fair choice and
access to schools. Whilst a review of the National Code may therefore bring
some additional benefits for parents, it is highly unlikely that restrictions
relating to the above reservation of places or applications from neighbouring
areas will change.”
Mr Kaufman asked the following supplementary question:
“Thank you Chair. First of all can I thank
Councillor Ould for a very comprehensive answer to my original question? Raising concerns with the Regional
Commissioner is a good start to in getting things put right in Oadby. Is there more that we can do by lobbying our
MPs and I wondered if he would join with me and ask the appropriate officers to
do that so that we can hopefully get something done. I note in your question you say it’s
unlikely but I would disagree with that.
I think there is a possibility when it’s pointed out to Government so I
wondered basically if I could have your support and the support of the
appropriate officers to lobby MPs.”
Mr Ould replied as follows:
“Thank you Madam Chair
and thank you for your supplementary Jeffrey. On the 3rd July
2017, I personally wrote to the then Secretary of State for Education Justine
Greening. I received a reply on the 27th
July 2017 from the Schools Minister Nick Gibb.
I am happy to share that reply with you but I think in view of what’s
written in Nick Gibbs letter it would be a futile future exercise.”
(E) Question by MR BOULTER
“Can the Leader
confirm whether the Council has loaned any money to Northamptonshire County
Council, and if so:
1. How
much was loaned and under what repayment terms?
2. Is
the loan secured?
3. Are
the risks associated with this loan being monitored on the risk register?”
Reply by MR
RHODES
“1. The
Council loaned £5m to Northamptonshire County Council on 3rd January
2018. The loan will mature on 2nd January 2019.
2. The
loan is not secured, which is normal for all Money Market transactions. It is
our understanding that Local Authorities cannot offer assets as security
against any borrowing.
3. Whilst
Northamptonshire County Council’s financial position has been well publicised,
and it is certainly in a very difficult financial situation, it is not
considered that repayment of the loan (plus interest) is in particular
jeopardy.
Whilst it is not impossible for a local authority to be declared
bankrupt it is very unlikely that this would happen. Much of the considerable
amount of external borrowing that Northamptonshire has is via the PWLB (which
is, in effect, a government agency). The major financial loser from the
government allowing Northamptonshire to be declared bankrupt is likely to the
government itself, and it is likely that every effort would be made to avoid
this outcome. In addition there would be a major breakdown in confidence in UK
public sector institutions with serious consequences for service delivery and
the wider economy. In the event that Northamptonshire does cease to exist a
much more likely outcome is a successor body that takes responsibility for both
the assets and liabilities of Northamptonshire.
As
a result the specific loan to Northamptonshire has not been placed on the risk
register.”
(F) Question by MR WELSH
“A recent Freedom of
Information request showed that in 2016/17 there were 94 teachers in
Leicestershire on long term stress leave.
This was a 47% increase on the year before, and a 237% increase compared
to 2013/14.
1. Does
the Leader agree that this is greatly concerning?
2. Is
there anything this Council can do to help address this problem?”
Reply by MR
OULD
“1. It
is a County Council priority to seek to reduce the level of sickness absence and therefore any increase in stress related
absence would be concerning. However,
the figures that we hold regarding such cases are significantly lower than
those quoted in the question. The number of cases we have reported in
maintained schools for the academic year 20167/17 is 23 employees.
2. The
responsibility for the day to day management of employees in maintained schools
lies with the Governing Body. In Academy schools the employer is the Academy
Trust. Over the period in question a significant number of schools have
converted to Academy status. The current
number of maintained schools in Leicestershire is 105, and the number of
schools that are academies is 176.
Locally, all maintained schools in the Local Authority are actively
supported, by Strategic HR Services and Health and Safety, in managing stress
related absence. This support includes:
· Support for head
teachers in managing attendance casework.
· Guidance and support
for Chairs of Governors in managing long term absence.
· Occupational health
referrals
· Access to the
counselling and wellbeing service.
· Stress audits, action
plans and training for schools.
· Staff development in
resilience and mindfulness.”
(G) Question by MR BILL
“On Wednesday, 14th
February an incident occurred on the M6 which resulted in considerable
congestion and delays across Hinckley.
When any incident occurs on either the M6, M69
or A5 this is often the result and as it is such a regular occurrence it goes
unreported. As is only too well known by
everyone in the area, the congestion in Hinckley and Burbage grows worse by the
day.
A new element has
now been introduced into the situation by the proposal to build an A46
Expressway which will probably join the local network at Junction 2 of the M69,
which is also the road between Hinckley and Sapcote. As we are all being invited to give our views
on the proposal to build this new road, along with all the other proposals, can
I please ask whether:-
a) any computer modelling or any other estimate been calculated
to enable us to assess what impact this new road will have on the local road
network which is so obviously now close to capacity?
b) If
this information is not yet available will it be available before the deadline
for comments on the Strategic Growth Plan on 5th April so that informed comment
can be made?”
Reply by MR
PAIN
“a) As previously explained by officers to Mr.
Bill the strategic context for the transport infrastructure associated with the
proposed growth plan had been set out in the Midlands Connect Strategy.
The local Highway Authorities have been working to develop
infrastructure proposals for Leicester and Leicestershire through documents
such as the Prospectus for Growth, the detail of which has already been
provided. Building on this and in support of the growth plan the Highway
Authorities are working with the Strategic Planning Group to investigate
further transport requirements and will share the outcomes of this when
finalised.
The modelling being undertaken is at a high level and will indicate
areas of focus for more detailed study.
b) It
is not expected this will be available as part of the consultation
process. The consultation is about the
principle of the plan not, as has been explained previously to Mr. Bill,
specific impacts on individual links or roads”.
(H) Question by MR BILL
“The proposal to
convert the A5 between the M42 and M1 is clearly an integral part of the
Strategic Growth Plan. A number of
questions were raised in Parliament on 7th February to which the
Minister replied that a good case had been made and that it will have to be
considered in the light of all the other bids across the Country.
1. No
mention has been made of the low railway bridge that crosses the A5 at
Hinckley, which if not addressed, could be a major stumbling block to any
improvements. Could this affect the bid?
2. What
will the impact be on the Strategic Growth Plan if this bid is not accepted?”
Reply by MR
PAIN
“1. The Government are currently
consulting on the second Road Investment
Strategy (RIS2). At this stage the Government are considering general areas of focus for investment rather than
specific schemes or local
issues. Therefore a low railway bridge
would not be considered at this
stage of the process.
2. For
clarity there is not a bid as such to the RIS process at this stage, but rather
high level consultation feedback.
The
Strategic Growth Plan provides a long term planning framework looking to 2050. The Plan will be kept under
review and updated as necessary in light of up to date evidence. Should
it become apparent that a key piece of infrastructure (such as the A5 between
the M42 and M1) needed to support housing and/or employment land provision cannot
be funded and delivered then this evidence will be taken into account in
updating the Plan. This might necessitate changes to the proposed strategic
distribution of housing and /or employment provision. Such new evidence
would also be taken into account when local plans are prepared and examined.”