Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Mrs Cope, Mr Cope, Lynch, MacDonald, Richards, Smith, Witherford and Wright.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 5 September 2017.

It was moved by Councillor Allen, seconded by Councillor Bill and

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meeting held on 5 September 2017 be approved and signed by the Mayor.

No interests were declared at this stage.

The Mayor presented a community award to Elaine Sharp of Ratby who had supported the community on various bodies and had undertaken voluntary work over many years.

Due to the timing of the recent election, we had to cancel our last planned meeting and this has resulted in many items on the agenda this evening. We will deal with those as we get to them, but they do show the range of issues that we, as members and council officers, deal with on a daily basis.

Our reports cover helping the homeless to building economic growth, prosperity and new homes for the future, from a strategy to protect our borough heritage to a debate about protecting one part of that heritage.

We will be discussing pay proposals for our officers and the independent report on members’ allowances. Members, and I hope most officers present, will appreciate that members will do all of this in a civilised manner.

At our last meeting of Council we approved a People Strategy for the period 2017-2021. This strategy set out some of the employment challenges facing the council over the coming years and the priorities we have for supporting and equipping our workforce to meet those challenges and opportunities that our corporate vision presents.

In adopting this strategy, members agreed that this council should be:

-       Nurturing and attracting talent

-       Building an agile and flexible workforce

-       Encouraging innovation and enterprise

-       Promoting health and wellbeing.

As part of these proposals, we agreed to undertake a complete review of our pay structure in light of the living wage requirements and to improve the flexibility of the existing pay structure in order to meet the future needs of the organisation.

The commitment of members of this Council to its officers cannot be questioned and we will carry out this review in addition to any nationally agreed changes.

Members also work extremely hard for this council and the residents and customers it serves, and yet there is always concern about accepting recommendations of an independent review body on members’ allowances. I do not have the opportunity to discuss the report with the panel and I do not agree with all of their recommendations, but I do think it right that we make some changes. I also know that most members are uncomfortable with this process and some are concerned about it being used politically, and that is why I shall include a proposal to link member allowance increases to the pay reviews of staff, with only one review by the independent panel each four years, with changes to be adopted after an election.

I would also like to advise members that I have recently, along with the leader of Blaby District Council, been appointed as one of the two representatives of district councils to the board of the Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership.

Finally, I want to thank our officers for what they have done to make Hinckley the best market town in Leicestershire and to congratulate Denise Larrad on her regional Unsung Hero award and to wish her well in the final on 17 December.

Cllr Mike Hall

Leader, Hinckley & Bosworth  ...  view the full agenda text for item 250.

In presenting his position statement, the Leader referred to the items on the agenda, his commitment to officers of the council and his recent appointment to the board of the Leicester and Leicestershire Economic Partnership. He also congratulated Denise Larrad on her regional Unsung Hero award and wished her well in the national final on 17 December. Councillors Bray and Lay echoed these sentiments. Councillor Cartwright asked that the Mayor write to Denise to congratulate her and wish her luck for the finals.

To receive for information only the minutes of the Scrutiny Commission meeting held on 9 October 2017.

Councillor Lay presented the minutes of the Scrutiny Commission meeting on 9 October.

Petition received under the council’s petitions scheme.

A petition in relation to the site known as the “Big Pit” off Ashby Road, Hinckley, was brought to Council in accordance with the petitions scheme. It was noted that the petition had been submitted to the Development Management team as an objection to planning application 17/00765/FUL but, as it didn’t relate to that application nor the merits thereof but to the principle of development, which had already been established via a previous appeal inspector’s decision, it could not be accepted as part of that consultation and was passed to Democratic Services for consideration under the petitions scheme.

The petition organiser presented the petition to Council and discussion ensued in relation to the following points:

·         The environmental asset which some members felt the site represented

·         The history of the pit as mineral springs

·         The flood risk in the area which would allegedly be worsened by the proposed development

·         The alleged factual errors in the officer’s report to Planning Committee which should be reviewed.

A member also asked for clarification on why the petition had not been considered to be valid for consideration as part of the consultation upon the planning application.

Councillor Bill, seconded by Councillor Bray, proposed that a working group be set up to look into the points raised to be able to inform the debate at the Planning Committee where the application, which members had been minded to refuse at the last meeting, would be brought back for decision. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED as the motion for debate.

A member suggested that it would be absurd to hold a working group to look into a matter which was not relevant to the current planning application. It was also suggested that members on the working group should not then sit on Planning Committee due to the risk of appearing to have predetermined the application.

Councillor Lay requested that the working group be set up as a scrutiny group. Councillors Bill and Bray, as movers of the substantive motion, were happy with this suggestion and it was subsequently

RESOLVED – A scrutiny group be set up to explore concerns raised to assist the Planning Committee in its deliberations, acknowledging that members of the group should not sit on the Planning Committee when this matter is considered.

Motion proposed by Councillor Lay and seconded by Councillor Crooks:

“Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council notes that:

·         Most workers employed by local authorities including HBBC are paid using nationally agreed rates of pay referred to as NJC rates

·         Basic pay for local government workers on NJC scales has fallen by 21% since 2010 in real terms due to the government’s public sector pay policy

·         Local government workers covered by NJC scales also had a three-year pay freeze from 2010-2012

·         Local terms and conditions of  many local government NJC employees have also been cut, impacting on their overall earnings

·         NJC pay is the lowest in the public sector

·         Job evaluated pay structures are being squeezed and distorted by bottom-loaded NJC pay settlements needed to reflect the increased National Living Wage and the Foundation Living Wage

·         There are growing equal and fair pay risks resulting from this situation.

This council therefore supports the NJC pay claim for 2018, submitted by the local government employee unions; UNISON, GMB and Unite on behalf of council and school workers and calls for the immediate end of public sector pay restraint. NJC pay cannot be allowed to fall further behind other parts of the public sector. This council also welcomes the joint review of the NJC pay spine to remedy the turbulence caused by bottom-loaded pay settlements.

This council also notes the drastic ongoing cuts to local government funding and calls on the Government to provide additional funding to fund a decent pay rise for NJC employees and the pay spine review. Without extra funding, measures to address pay restraint will not be possible.

This council therefore resolves to:

·         Call immediately on the LGA to make urgent representations to Government to fund the NJC claim and the pay spine review and notify us of their action in this regard

·         Write to the Prime Minister and Chancellor supporting the NJC pay claim and seeking additional funding to fund a decent pay rise and the pay spine review

·         Meet with local NJC union representatives to convey support for the pay claim and the pay spine review.”

Councillor Lay, seconded by Councillor Crooks, presented the following motion which was printed in the agenda:

“Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council notes that:

·         Most workers employed by local authorities including HBBC are paid using nationally agreed rates of pay referred to as NJC rates

·         Basic pay for local government workers on NJC scales has fallen by 21% since 2010 in real terms due to the government’s public sector pay policy

·         Local government workers covered by NJC scales also had a three-year pay freeze from 2010-2012

·         Local terms and conditions of  many local government NJC employees have also been cut, impacting on their overall earnings

·         NJC pay is the lowest in the public sector

·         Job evaluated pay structures are being squeezed and distorted by bottom-loaded NJC pay settlements needed to reflect the increased National Living Wage and the Foundation Living Wage

·         There are growing equal and fair pay risks resulting from this situation.

This council therefore supports the NJC pay claim for 2018, submitted by the local government employee unions; UNISON, GMB and Unite on behalf of council and school workers and calls for the immediate end of public sector pay restraint. NJC pay cannot be allowed to fall further behind other parts of the public sector. This council also welcomes the joint review of the NJC pay spine to remedy the turbulence caused by bottom-loaded pay settlements.

This council also notes the drastic ongoing cuts to local government funding and calls on the Government to provide additional funding to fund a decent pay rise for NJC employees and the pay spine review. Without extra funding, measures to address pay restraint will not be possible.

This council therefore resolves to:

·         Call immediately on the LGA to make urgent representations to Government to fund the NJC claim and the pay spine review and notify us of their action in this regard

·         Write to the Prime Minister and Chancellor supporting the NJC pay claim and seeking additional funding to fund a decent pay rise and the pay spine review

·         Meet with local NJC union representatives to convey support for the pay claim and the pay spine review.”

In presenting his motion, Councillor Lay praised staff and referred to pay increases being frozen or very low for at least seven years.

Councillor Hall agreed with the sentiment but felt that the wording should be amended to deal with the matter locally rather than making representations to the government. He explained that over the last two years, the minimum pay had increased by 6.5% and the current employers offer that had been issued earlier in the week was recommending a 2% increase for all staff and a greater increase for the lowest paid. He also felt that changes to taxation had benefitted lower paid staff. He proposed an amendment to the motion which was not accepted in accordance with council procedure rule 17.3.

An amendment was proposed by Councillor Bray and supported by both Councillors Lay and Crooks as mover and seconder of the original motion  ...  view the full minutes text for item 253.

To advise members of the new duties arising from the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and potential implications for the council and to advise on DCLG funding through a flexible homelessness grant and new burdens funding.

Council was advised of new duties arising from the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and potential implications for the council and of DCLG funding through a flexible homelessness grant and new burdens funding.

During discussion, a report was requested on rollout of universal credit and implications of this. In response, it was noted that this was scheduled for Finance & Performance Scrutiny in early 2018. Members also queried whether the resources requested would be adequate to support the new duties under the Homelessness Reduction Act.

Whilst not directly relating to the report, discussion ensued on affordable housing including ensuring viability, the need for developers to have a social landlord on board at the time of the application being submitted and exemption sites.

It was moved by Councillor Wallace, seconded by Councillor Allen and

RESOLVED –

(i)            The new statutory responsibilities of the Homelessness Reduction Act and the implications of these for the council be noted;

(ii)           Supplementary income and expenditure budgets of £118,078 for 2017/18 and £123,129 for 2018/19 (based on the funding awarded by central government for the flexible homelesseness grant and new burdens money) be approved.

To seek endorsement of the new directions for growth – local plan review document, revised local development scheme and statement of community involvement.

Attached is an extract from the minutes of the Scrutiny Commission where this item was considered.

Members gave consideration to the directions for growth – local plan review, the local development scheme and the statement of community involvement. During discussion, the following points were made:

·         The need to engage with parishes and parish councils. In response it was stated that discussions had already started with parish councils

·         The importance of maintaining a five year land supply, particularly in avoiding speculative applications

·         The problem of including minimum numbers of housing required as advised by government, but no maximum

·         The number of housing developments given planning permission but not being built, and the number of empty homes

·         The importance of developing the right type of houses

·         The need to distribute the consultation as widely as possible.

Some members felt that garden villages were not appropriate, whilst others felt they were preferable to sustainable urban extensions (SUEs). A member expressed concern that there did not appear to be any progress relating to delivery of the SUEs and suggested that the Scrutiny Commission be asked to review progress on them. The chairman of the Scrutiny Commission agreed to take this on board.

It was moved by Councillor Surtees and seconded by Councillor Hall that the recommendations within the report be approved. Councillor Bray along with four other councillors requested that voting on this motion be recorded. The vote was taken as follows:

Councillors Allen, Bessant, Boothby, Camamile, Cook, Hall, Kirby, Ladkin, Morrell, Nickerson, Roberts, Surtees, Sutton, Wallace, Ward and Williams voted FOR the motion (16);

Councillors Bill, Bray, Cartwright, Crooks, Hodgkins, Hollick, Nichols and Taylor voted AGAINST the motion (8).

Councillors Lay and O’Shea abstained from voting.

The motion was therefore declared CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED –

(i)            The Directions for growth – local plan review, revised statement of community involvement and revised local development scheme documents be endorsed;

(ii)           The undertaking of a period of consultation on the Directions for growth – local plan review, revised statement of community involvement and revised local development scheme documents be approved;

(iii)          Authority be delegated to the Director (Environment & Planning) in liaison with the relevant Executive member to make minor drafting / presentational changes to the documents in order to assist with clarification and/or explanation prior to it being published for consultation;

(iv)         Authority be delegated to the Director (Environment & Planning) in liaison with the relevant Executive member to amend the local development scheme timetable as required.

To inform Council of work undertaken to date and approve the consultation process and timetable.

Attached is an extract from the minutes of the Scrutiny Commission where this item was considered.

The strategic growth plan for Leicester and Leicestershire was presented to Council. It was noted that the document had been drafted in collaboration with all Leicestershire authorities and the Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership.

In response to a member’s question, it was stated that members had been consulted on this via a number of meetings of the Planning Policy Member Working Group, to which all members had been invited and had received agendas. During discussion on the report, reference was made to:

·         The 750 acre freight depot planned for the edge of Blaby District, bordering Burbage Common, to be considered as a national infrastructure scheme

·         The lack of belief that the infrastructure would be in place to support the plan

·         The lack of certainty over where the A46 expressway will be

·         The risk of lack of consultation responses if the document is set at too high a level.

It was emphasised that the purpose of this report was to agree the document for consultation, not to agree the adoption of its content. It was moved by Councillor Surtees and seconded by Councillor Hall that the recommendations within the report be approved.

Councillor Bray and four other councillors requested that voting on the motion be recorded. The vote was taken as follows:

Councillors Allen, Bessant, Boothby, Camamile, Cook, Hall, Kirby, Ladkin, Morrell, Nickerson, Roberts, Surtees, Sutton, Wallace, Ward and Williams voted FOR the motion (16);

Councillors Bill, Bray, Cartwright, Crooks, Hodgkins, Hollick, Nichols and Taylor voted AGAINST the motion (8).

Councillors Lay and O’Shea abstained from voting.

The motion was therefore declared CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED –

(i)            The process undertaken for preparation of the draft strategic growth plan for Leicester and Leicestershire be noted and endorsed;

(ii)           It be noted that the consultation draft plan had been endorsed by the Members’ Advisory Group;

(iii)          The consultation process and timetable be approved;

(iv)         A further report be brought back to Council to consider the consultation responses and approve the final version of the plan.

To seek approval of the heritage strategy 2018 – 2023.

Attached is an extract from the minutes of the Scrutiny Commission where this item was considered.

The heritage strategy 2018 – 2023 was presented to Council. Members thanked the author for his hard work.

At this stage, Councillor Bessant declared that he had recently moved into a property that was identified in the strategy and stated that he would not vote on the item due to having a personal interest.

It was moved by Councillor Surtees, seconded by Councillor Hall and

RESOLVED – the heritage strategy and accompanying background and action plan be adopted.

To present the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel on members’ allowances and recommend adoption of a scheme of allowances.

Attached as a late item is an extract from the minutes of the Scrutiny Commission where this item was discussed and a proposal from Councillor M Hall which will be moved at the meeting.

The recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel on members’ allowances was presented to Council.

Councillor Hall proposed an alternative scheme as set out in the supplementary agenda which supported adoption of some of the panel’s recommendations but amended others. The key changes were highlighted as:

·         The scheme would cover 2018/19 and 2019/20 but not 2020/21

·         The Leader’s allowance would be increased above that recommended by the panel, but the Leader would not be entitled to a second SRA (the same would apply to the Deputy Leader in relation to a second SRA)

·         The allowance for the chairman of the Appeals Panel and Ethical Governance & Personnel Committee would not be increased to reflect the lack of frequency of the meetings

·         The allowance for the chairman of the Licensing and Licensing (Regulatory) Committee would be decreased to reflect the lack of frequency of the meetings

·         The allowance for the chairman of the Planning Committee would be increased above that recommended by the panel to reflect the frequency of the meetings, the number of associated meetings and the amount of preparatory work required

·         The entitlement to 1.5 SRAs for any member (with the exception of the Leader and Deputy Leader) instead of the one SRA recommended by the panel

·         The reduction of 0.5 of an Executive member’s SRA for a Leader / Deputy Leader not taking on a portfolio

·         A recommendation to the Member Development Group to consider recommending to the panel the adoption of attendance allowances for some meetings that meet regularly such as licensing hearings and planning committee site visits and to consider incentives for paperless working

·         The panel be requested to meeting in July 2018 to consider any recommendations of the member development group for implementation in 2019 and four-yearly thereafter with any changes to the scheme of allowances arising from the panel being considered for implementation for the new Council (to remove the discomfort felt by members in considering their own allowances)

·         Annual increases in line with officer pay awards in between recommendations from the panel.

Some members felt that any review of allowances should be deferred until a settlement for staff pay had been agreed and that the percentage increase that was recommended was unfair compared to that offered to staff. However other members noted the difficulty in attracting councillors, the amount of time spent on council work which was barely financially recognised at present and the lack of increases between 2005 and 2015.

Councillor Sutton seconded the motion proposed.

Councillor Cartwright and four other councillors requested that voting on this motion be recorded. The vote was taken as follows:

Councillors Allen, Bessant, Boothby, Camamile, Cook, Hall, Kirby, Ladkin, Morrell, Nickerson, Roberts, Surtees, Sutton, Wallace and Ward voted FOR the motion (15);

Councillors Bill, Bray, Cartwright, Crooks, Hodgkins, Hollick, Lay, Nichols, Taylor and Williams voted AGAINST the motion (10);

Councillor O’Shea abstained from voting.

The motion was therefore declared CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED –

(i)            the scheme of members’ allowances be amended as follows:

(a)  The following  ...  view the full minutes text for item 258.

Members are asked to note that the Chief Executive exercised his delegated authority under paragraph 3.2 of part 2 of the council’s constitution to appoint Councillor MacDonald to the Audit Committee, Finance & Performance Scrutiny and the Scrutiny Commission.

It was noted that the Chief Executive had exercised his delegated authority in appointing Councillor MacDonald to Audit Committee, Finance & Performance Scrutiny and the Scrutiny Commission.

Members are asked to agree the appointment of Councillor P Wallace to the Community Safety Partnership.

It was moved by Councillor Hall, seconded by Councillor Allen and

RESOLVED – Councillor Wallace be appointed to the Community Safety Partnership for the remainder of the municipal year.

To consider the passing of a resolution under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 excluding the public from the undermentioned item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 3 and 10 of Schedule 12A of the 1972 Act.

On the motion of Councillor Lay seconded by Councillor Allen, it was

RESOLVED – in accordance with section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 3 and 10 of Part I of Schedule 12A of that Act.

Report of Director, Environment and Planning.

Attached is an updated covering report with amended recommendations and an extract from the minutes of the Scrutiny Commission where this item was considered.

Council gave consideration to an investment opportunity. It was moved by Councillor Surtees, seconded by Councillor Bray and

RESOLVED – the recommendations contained within the report be approved.

Report of Chief Executive.

Attached is an extract from the minutes of the Scrutiny Commission where this item was considered.

A report which proposed negotiations on a contract was presented to Council. The risks arising from not coming to an agreement were highlighted and legal advice in relation to the likelihood of successfully challenging the matter was outlined.

Councillor Hall, seconded by Councillor Bessant, proposed that negotiations be entered into.

Councillor Bray suggested that the matter be deferred for further legal advice in order to ensure the best position for the Council. Councillor Hall withdrew his previous proposal and moved that the matter be deferred. It was seconded by Councillor Bray and

RESOLVED – the matter be deferred.