Minutes:
(A) Mr
Bray asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
“Could the Leader update me on progress
regarding a school crossing patrol for St Peter’s School, Hinckley?”
Mr Pendleton replied as follows:
“The school crossing patrol (SCP) for St
Peter’s School in Hinckley has been vacant since 14th July
2017. We have ever since sought to
recruit a patrol to this site on London Road and have done our best to attract
candidates. Because of the relatively
short times of operation (45 minutes in the morning and 35 minutes in the
afternoon) it is likely to appeal to someone with connections to the school
and/or living in close proximity to the school.
Our service is reliant on members of the
community coming forward to fill these paid school crossing patrol roles. Unfortunately, to date no applications for
this location have been received.
As with all our vacant SCP sites we will be
reviewing this location once children return following the latest
lockdown. This will be to check the
volume of traffic and number of pedestrians crossing – known as a PV2
assessment. We will then revisit our
recruitment programme dependent on the outcome of this review.”
(B) Mr Bray asked the
following question of the Leader or his nominee:
“Could the Leader update me on the highspeed
broadband rollout in parts of Burbage which currently have poor
speeds/coverage?”
Mr Pain replied as follows:
“Superfast Leicestershire is a £33.5m
partnership led by the County Council, together with Openreach, LLEP,
Government and district councils. Since
2014, Leicestershire County Council has invested more than £20m to improve
digital infrastructure through the Superfast Leicestershire Programme,
resulting in more than 75,000 residential and business premises having gained
access to superfast broadband across Phase 1 & 2 of the Programme, taking
the broadband coverage across Leicester to 97%.
The Superfast Leicestershire Programme is
committed to delivering further phases of high-speed broadband rollout, and the
launch of Phase 3 of the Programme in August 2019 will see a further 2500
premises benefit from future proofed Gigabit capable full fibre connections
across west Leicestershire, working with our delivery partner Openreach.
Specifically, as a result of the Programme’s
intervention to date, superfast broadband coverage within Burbage, and across
the Hinckley & Bosworth district as a whole has reached 95%.
We do not want to see any area left behind and
are committed to working towards 100% superfast coverage across Leicestershire,
and to seek all possible solutions to support the residents of Burbage and
across the Hinckley & Bosworth area.
The remaining premises in Burbage which have
poor broadband speeds are currently in the delivery plan within the Phase 3
Contract, of which the Superfast Leicestershire Team are focussing their
efforts on ensuring all the unserved premises are planned-in to receive
full-fibre broadband infrastructure.
The good news is, so far 20 premises within
the Burbage area have recently been upgraded to full-fibre, and can now order
gigabit capable broadband services, via their internet service provider.
We are prioritising and focussing our efforts
on finding solutions for all unserved properties, and I have asked officers to
work closely with BDUK and Outside-in Programme to ensure Leicestershire is at
the front of the queue to be considered for BDUK funding to rollout full-fibre
broadband to the remaining unserved areas and premises across Leicestershire.
For information, Appendix A provides
the current status of premises by post-code in the Burbage area planned in the
Phase 3 delivery, including those that have recently been upgraded.”
Appendix A
|
No. of
Premises |
Post-Codes |
Outcome |
|
20 |
LE10 3EN LE10 3ES LE10 3ER LE10 3DP |
Fibre-to-the-Premises infrastructure built and gone LIVE as part of
Contract 3 delivery - Dec 2020. These 20 premises can now order FTTP services. |
|
275 |
LE10 2LG LE10 2LL LE10 2LN LE10 2NS LE10 2NW LE10 2NZ LE10 2PE LE10 2PF LE10 2PG LE10 2QJ LE10 2QP LE10 2RR |
Originally modelled as FTTC as part of the original Contract. Once planning had mobilised, Openreach advised that FTTP would be a
better solution with better speeds, and to flip the technology. These premises have now been submitted as part of a change request to
Openreach to re-mode and cost, based on FTTP. LCC awaiting the Impact assessments and costs, with firm intentions to
sign-off subject to BDUK Assurance. |
|
6 |
LE10 2LN LE10 3BQ |
Business Premises to be descoped as they all have leased lines /
Ethernet lines drawing speeds of over 100Mb. |
|
13 |
LE10 3JA LE10 3AH LE10 2QP LE10 3BA LE10 2LL LE10 3AJ |
Openreach have not modelled these in original contract, potential to
review these once the feedback from the Change Request has been received,
however no guarantees can be offered. |
(C) Dr Eynon asked the following question of
the Leader or his nominee:
“The Century
Theatre has, thanks to the diligent work of artistic director Sam Girdham, a
£250,000 award from the Arts Council’s Cultural Recovery Fund (CRF). The
fund is to assist this Council’s refurbished heritage and new studio theatres,
situated in Snibston Colliery Park, to re-open after the pandemic. The deadline
for making claims against the grant is March 31st. This funding lifeline has the potential to
reinvigorate the cultural offer in North West Leicestershire and it would be a
pity to lose this opportunity.
What urgent steps
are being taken to:
Mr Rhodes replied as follows:
“I join Dr Eynon in welcoming the £250,000 award from the Arts Council’s
Cultural Recovery Fund for the Century Theatre and the opportunities it
provides to expand the cultural offer in Coalville.
Since the grant award, officers from across
the County Council have been working together to develop specifications, plan
the required works and develop a comprehensive programme of events. Some artists have been commissioned and the
tenders are being issued for the electrical equipment and works.
The budget for the grant award has been agreed
and funds allocated accordingly, part of the grant award is to support the
theatre with its costs through the loss of income due to Covid 19. The tenders
are being issued for the equipment and works and the funds will be committed by
the deadline of 31st March 2021.
The Arts Council are allowing some carry
forward of the grant due to the ongoing Covid-related restrictions and officers
are working closely with them to ensure the grant is secure.
We are already promoting the wider benefits of
the grant. Thanks to the Culture
Recovery Fund grant, the Century Theatre is proud to have established a new
programme of creative classes for young people and the community. In partnership with the Arts Mark initiative
and Trinity College, local schools and community groups can learn, explore and
perform in the Century Theatre’s main auditorium and studio space. The Academy brings in high quality
professional artists to teach and nurture creativity for everyone. The new Facebook and Instagram pages will be
a source of information not only about what we have to offer but also serve as
a repository for the extensive material that will be created on site and from
people’s homes.
In the spring, the Century Theatre will be
hosting a National Forest initiative, led by a local theatre company, to
promote creativity in outdoor spaces and will take place at Snibston Country
Park”.
Dr Eynon asked the following supplementary question:
“I thank the Lead Member for his response.
Whilst I am pleased to see that we are making use of the wider benefits of the
grant by establishing new programmes and partnerships, bringing in professional
artists and using Facebook and Instagram as a repository for materials, I am
concerned that none of these necessarily constitute public ‘promotion’ of these
opportunities.
I would be grateful if the Lead Member could
clarify:
Mr Rhodes replied as follows:
“We are currently updating the marketing plan
to ensure that its fits within the whole plan for Snibston Colliery Park and is
flexible enough to ensure that it can accommodate on line and face to face
activity as lockdown restrictions ease over time.
It will be funded as part of the overall
Leicestershire Traded Services (LTS) Marketing Budget and delivered jointly by
appropriate officers from Comms and LTS, including the Century Theatre staff,
working together.
Therefore, the responsibility will lie jointly
across the whole LTS and Comms team, drawing together expertise, innovation and
creativity from many individuals.”
(D) Mr
Hunt as the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
“1. Last
year the authority compensated bus companies in full to the value of £5million
for loss of concessionary fares. Will
the same compensation apply in the budget 2021/2 and for how long will it
apply?
2. Has
the authority considered reducing this, possibly in consultation with the bus
companies for reduced services during the pandemic?
3. What
contributions to concessionary fares have been received by the County Council
this year and previously, and under what form of allocation?
4. Does
the authority believe we have been allocated fair compensation in the past?”
Mr Pendleton replied as follows:
“1. Payment is made by the
local authorities to operators to reimburse them where they have been carrying
eligible concessionary travel pass holders for free.
The County
Council was urged by the Department for Transport (DfT) to reimburse bus
operators at pre-Covid levels (2019/20) during the pandemic despite
significantly lower concession passengers.
The County Council initially wrote to operators in March 2020 stating
that they would maintain full payment until the end of June 2020. This was further extended until
November.
An independent
review of concessionary travel reimbursement and bus subsidy in the wake of the
Covid-19 pandemic was commissioned by the County Council in November 2020. The review recommended that in consideration
of the local bus market, concessionary reimbursement should continue at 100% of
pre-Covid levels, in order to protect the local bus network. It was intended
that the arrangement would remain in place until the DfT advised otherwise,
with a further review taking place in May 2021 if the situation remained the
same.
2. On 13th January
2021 the DfT wrote to Local Transport Authorities (LTAs) asking them to
continue making concessionary reimbursement payments. However, they advised that LTAs could
consider reducing concessionary fare reimbursement funding to the level of
service that operators are providing.
Given this recent
guidance by the DfT, the County Council is currently considering its position
on this matter taking into account current service levels as well as the
findings of the independent review referred to in Question 1.
3. There is no separate
Government allocation for concessionary travel.
The DfT specific grant for concessionary travel ceased in 2011/12 and transferred into Revenue Support Grant
(RSG). Concessionary travel is now
funded solely from the settlement (combination of council tax and business
rates) and therefore not separately identifiable.
4. Given the funding
arrangement (Question 3 above), there is no transparency in the funding
allocation specifically for concessionary travel. Increased cost pressures from concessionary
travel reimbursement compound already competing demands for finite funding and
place further strain on County Council services.
It is well documented
that the County Council does not believe Leicestershire is fairly funded under
the current financial settlement arrangements.”
(E) Mrs Hack asked the
following question of the Leader or his nominee:
“It is recognised that the progression of the
5G network is of critical importance to the ongoing progress to mobile
connectivity, but there are increasing concerns being raised by local people
about masts appearing without any consultation or prior knowledge. In addition, as many of these masts appear on
public land, the lack of consultation for these infrastructure projects is what
creates the most frustration. The mast
that has appeared in my division has been placed on County Council Highways
land, yet I have been informed by Highways colleagues that there was no formal
notice raised with the County Council as the owner of the land. As there was no notice to County, there was
obviously no consultation with me as the local member either.
Could the Leader please advise me:
1. What is the local
agreement, if any, for the District Councils to notify Leicestershire County
Council of planning permission requests around 5G masts?
2. What is the local
agreement, if any, for the District Councils/or the applicant to notify
Leicestershire County Council of planning permission for 5G masts that are
going to be placed on land owned by the County given that many masts are
appearing on land owned by Leicestershire Highways?
3. Apart from the planning
process, what other constraints apply to the positioning of 5G and similar
masts?
4. What sanctions are
available where procedure, including consultation, is overlooked by the
applicant?”
Mr Pendleton replied as follows:
“1. There are no local agreements. National legislation is in place and followed
as detailed. Most masts (and antennae)
can be erected under ‘permitted development’ rules, which means that full
planning permission is normally not required.
Where they do need permission (typically because of the mast’s height),
the County Council as highway authority will only be consulted by the district
council as local planning authority if they consider there may be a potential
highway safety issue (such as affecting a visibility splay or if sited on a
narrow footpath). In most cases,
equipment will not have any impact on highway safety, so the highway authority
will not be consulted. Our understanding
is that, under Government licencing rules, telecommunications operators have to
inform the highway authority about telecoms installations in the highway as a
statutory undertaker (notification, not consultation). This is the same as where other utility
providers install equipment in the highway.
More detail on specific cases may be available from local planning
authorities.
2. Following on from the above, there are
no specific agreements for land designated as public highway (which may not
necessarily be owned by the County Council) as the telecom operator is usually
required to follow a simple notification process. However, with respect to other County Council
land, on 11th July 2000 the Cabinet considered a joint report from
the Director of Property and Director of Education regarding the perceived
health impact of cellular telephones.
Cabinet agreed that the County Council should adopt a precautionary
approach, as follows:
(a) (i) that
leases of telecommunications aerials and equipment on occupied buildings should
be terminated wherever possible, where no penalties are likely to be incurred;
(ii) that no new installations be permitted on
occupied buildings other than those alterations and additions allowed under the
individual lease terms; and
(iii) that no new base installations be erected
on sites remote from occupied buildings until advice has been received from the
Government on appropriate safeguards.
(b) that Governing Bodies are advised of
Council policy and are strongly advised to follow that policy; and
(c) that a Health & Safety circular is
prepared for Governing Bodies and Headteachers containing the latest Government
advice in relation to the use of mobile phones by children.
3. There is a code of practice relating to
this in regard to highway installations – Code of Practice relating to
Electronic Communications Code and the Electronic Communications Code
(Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003 and the Town and Country
Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, Part 24 of Schedule 2 to the
Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO).
4. The procedures that should be followed
will vary depending on issues such as the siting of the equipment or the height
of the mast. Therefore, the local
planning authority will be best placed to advise on any relevant sanctions.
In some cases, it may be appropriate to use
the complaints procedure of the company responsible for the installation.”
Mrs Hack asked the following supplementary question:
“The response indicates:
a) that the District Council will consult
County ‘if they consider there may be a potential highway safety issue’.
Considering County deals with 7 District/Borough Authorities, is there an
agreed threshold for a potential highways safety issue and is this consistent
across Leicestershire?
b) the telecoms provider is required to
notify the highway authority. In the case referred to in my question it did
not. The answer to question 4 states that sanctions are the
responsibility of the planning authority, but if it’s the duty of the
communications provider to inform County, what is the process County follow
where this does not happen?”
Mr Pendleton
replied as follows:
“a) No, it will be a matter for each LPA to
determine any need for consultation and consult relevant authorities based on
their assessment
b) Once the planning process is complete the
telecom provider will need to apply for a permit to work in the highway. If
excavation and works take place on the highway without a permit, the maximum
fee we can charge them is £500, (reducing to £300 if paid within 29 days).”
Mrs Hack asked a further supplementary question:
“The last time this issue was reported to Cabinet was 11th
July 2000. Does the Lead Member consider whether there need to be a
review in light of more recent legislation on this issue?”
Mr Pendleton
replied as follows:
“Given the issues raised through these questions both locally and more
generally, I have asked officers to review the processes relating to
telecommunications equipment and infrastructure in relation to highways. This will be reported to me so I can consider
my position on this point.”