Agenda and minutes

Apologies were submitted on behalf of Councillors Inman, Ladkin, Morrell & Richards.

To receive verbally from Members any disclosures which they are required to make in accordance with the Council's code of conduct or in pursuance of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. This is in addition to the need for such disclosure to be also given when the relevant matter is reached on the Agenda.

No interests were declared at this stage.

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive (Community Direction).

Since despatch of the agenda, there has been an amendment to recommendation 2.6 of this report:

2.6  That members note that in the first year, 2015/2016, there may be a shortfall in revenue funding of up to £200,000 arising from the servicing of borrowing prior to the opening of the new Leisure Centre. Members will in due course be asked to approve funding of this amount from General Fund Balances. This amount will replenished in full in the following year.

Council was advised of the outcome of the procurement process in relation to the development of a new Leisure Centre facility for the Borough on the site of the former Council Offices adjacent to Argents Mead. Members were informed that the Scrutiny Commission, following a detailed debate, had supported the recommendations. A summary of the questions raised at Scrutiny Commission, and the answers given, was circulated to Members, to assist the debate and avoid unnecessary repetition. In response to the concern that the Scrutiny Commission had not been informed of the companies involved which were referred to in the report as ‘Bidder A’ and ‘Bidder B’, and as a clear recommendation had been made by the scrutiny Commission, it was acknowledged that it was now expedient to reveal that Bidder A was DC Leisure and Bidder B was SLM.

Attention was drawn to an amended recommendation 2.6 which had been circulated following further negotiations and cited the shortfall in the first year as £200,000, which had been reduced from the £360,000 estimated in the original version of the report. This had been achieved by the contractor foregoing part of its profit margin in year 1. It was stated that a profiling document would be issued to members when finalised.

During discussion, reference was made to the following:

• That instead of the historic cost to the authority or small income (currently) for running the current leisure centre, there would be a considerable income stream for 20 years;
• The apparent insufficient spectator seating to enable the pool to be suitable for hosting national ASA competitions (with the pool being suitable for local competitions and for training and club purposes);
• The need to keep pricing reasonable for users of the facilities – in response it was confirmed that the Council would retain (as now) a control over pricing;
• The cost of the office space and the need for it – in response to this, it was reported that office space was part of the management agreement;
• The importance of a newer, more environmentally friendly building;
• The hard work over several months in order to manage the procurement process;
• The vast amount of consultation that had been undertaken during the course of the procurement process;
• The employment of an Independent Consultant and expert in leisure provision to advise on the selection process;

In response to concerns regarding the report in the press about the pool being unsuitable for competitions, the Independent Consultant explained that there had been a number of aspects to consider in planning the new centre and the need for 250 spectator seats had to be weighed up against other facilities which would have been lost in exchange for this seating, particularly when national competitions with large numbers of spectators would be rare.

Councillor Batty, seconded by Councillor Bessant, MOVED that the item be deferred to receive further details on the implications of the revenue model and on the outcome of the most recent consultation exercise. Upon being put to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 371.

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive (Community Direction).

The Site Allocations document and appendices are available on the Council’s website as part of the agenda documentation, in the Members’ Room, or Members can request a copy from the report author. Members of the public can view the documents by arrangement at Hinckley Hub.

The consultation report in respect of the Preferred Options stage, held between 9 February 2009 and 6 April 2009, can be viewedhere.

Members considered a report which sought agreement to consult on the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) pre-submission version and supporting documents. Members welcomed the report and particularly the prospect that, following adoption, the Local Planning Authority would no longer be vulnerable to developers taking advantage of the lack of evidence that a five year land supply was in place.

A member asked that consideration be given to the Development Plan Document being brought back to Council after consultation, as had happened previously, before being submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination in Public. In response it was explained that, when the previous DPD had been referred back to Council, it had been at an earlier stage in the process, and that to do so again at this late stage would cause unnecessary delay.

A member reported that, in considering the application for development on the Big Pit, Leicestershire County Council Planning Committee had been informed that Hinckley & Bosworth Borough had a five year land supply. In response it was confirmed that, whilst this was true, it was repeatedly challenged by the Inspector at appeals resulting in inconsistent outcomes.

A member raised concerns about the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment being out of date, as it had been produced in 2007, since when new areas of flooding had emerged. In response it was stated that the Environment Agency was a statutory consultee on the DPD and would be expected to have commented on any flood risk, if they felt it was an issue.

It was moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Bill, and unanimously

RESOLVED –

(i)         the publication of the pre-submission draft Site Allocations Development Management Policies DPD, Sustainability Appraisal and supporting documents be approved for consultation between 17 February 2014 and 31 March 2014 in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Regulations (Local Development) (England) 2004 (as amended);

(ii)        the submission of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD and supporting documents be approved for submission to the Secretary of State for Examination in Public following analysis of the representations received during the consultation period;

(iii)       the Statement of Consultation Responses to the Site Allocations and Generic Development Control Policies DPD Preferred Options February 2009 – April 2009 be approved.

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive (Community Direction).

Members received a report which recommended funding to extend fibre broadband coverage within Hinckley & Bosworth through Leicestershire County Council’s contract with BT.

Members felt that the project would result in an improvement for many residents throughout the borough and that it was a relatively small investment for a large increase in speed and coverage.

It was moved by Councillor Gould, seconded by Councillor Crooks and unanimously

RESOLVED –

(i)         the £40,000 capital budget for the rural Broadband scheme be approved;

(ii)        the virement of £37,350 from the Grants to the Home Improvement Agency scheme budget be approved;

(iii)       the supplementary budget of £3,470 from general fund contributions to fund the remainder of the project be approved;

(iv)       authority be delegated to the Chief Executive to sign the Collaboration Agreement between Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council and Leicestershire County Council subject to agreement of the terms.