Agenda and minutes

Apologies were submitted on behalf of Mrs Chastney and Mr Moore.

On the motion of Mr Bray, seconded by Mr Cope, it was

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meeting held on 25 October 2011 be confirmed and signed by the Mayor.

At this juncture, a Member drew attention to the minutes of the previous meeting (page 6 of the agenda pack), which stated that the explanation on how the five-year land supply was calculated would be re-circulated to Members, and raised concern that this had not been received. Members were assured that this would be sent as soon as possible. It was also suggested that the answer to supplementary questions should be minuted, and it was agreed to give consideration to this.

Mr Bray declared a personal and prejudicial interest in item 14: Depot Relocation Options, as he owned a property near to the current depot site.

Mr Mullaney declared a personal interest in item 14: Depot Relocation Options.

The Mayor announced the success of the recent visit of a delegation from Le Grand Quévilly and the Christmas lights switch-on event. He made reference to his recent visits to residential homes, and also expressed his concern regarding the closure of some of the neo-natal facilities at the George Eliot Hospital.

A Member informed the Council that ex-Councillor Mrs Claridge was ill, and asked that the Council wish her a speedy recovery.

a)         Questions asked by Councillor DM Taylor and addressed to the Leader of Council

            “Can the Leader remind the Council what the proposals were for the Argents Mead area in the Masterplan published by the previous administration in 2006?”

            Response from Councillor SL Bray

            “Thank you Cllr Taylor for your question.

I would refer you to an extract of the adopted Hinckley Town Centre Renaissance Masterplan published in May 2006.  As you will see, extensive development was proposed. Two plans are attached.”

b)         Question asked by Councillor MS Hulbert and addressed to the Leader of Council

“A lot has been said in the Chamber and local press about the consultation that has taken place over the Barwell and Earl Shilton SUE’s.  Could the Leader put on record all the consultation that has taken place for the benefit of all Members, some of which appear to have missed it!”

Response from Councillor SL Bray

“You will recall at last Council, I highlighted the extensive consultation that has been carried out on the SUE’s for Barwell and Earl Shilton.  For the avoidance of doubt, I have listed below the details of the consultation exercises which demonstrate the ongoing and extensive nature of consultation carried out to date.  You will also be aware the Developers are planning further consultation early in the New Year, as well as a presentation to Scrutiny Commission.

Public Consultation Stages – Earl Shilton and Barwell SUEs/AAP

Masterplan

·         Pre-commencement consultation (July to September 2008)

·         Masterplan Options Consultation (from July 2009 to March 2010)

·         Masterplan Preferred Options Consultation (October 2010)

·         Earl Shilton and Barwell Area Action Plan – Preferred Options Consultation (January and February 2011)

In his position statement, the Leader of Council paid tribute to the Cultural Services team who not only organised a successful event for the switching on of the Christmas lights, but also seamlessly moved the event to Church Walk with less than 24 hours notice, due to a suspected gas leak in the Market Place. He also thanked officers for their work on the Enterprise Zone.

He also made reference to the meeting with Greg Clark regarding the five-year land supply and the hope to achieve a more robust position from January 2012; the first Studio School planned by North Warwickshire and Hinckley College; progress regarding discussions with Royal Mail and the number of positive commitments secured; support for MIRA and improvements to the A5; the intention to make representations regarding the proposals for George Eliot Hospital; and the need to make difficult decisions regarding the budget, whilst retaining frontline service levels.

Councillor Bessant responded by expressing his support regarding George Eliot Hospital and offering congratulations for successful discussions with Royal Mail.

Councillor Lay, in addition to supporting the above points, thanked officers for the work put into the Compulsory Purchase Order for the Bus Station Site, and highlighted the potential for the expansion of MIRA to vastly improve the local economy.

The minutes of the Scrutiny Commission meeting held on 27 October were received for information. In presenting these, the Chairman of the Commission reported that the particular issues discussed regarding the sale of vehicles on the highway (minute 223 refers) had not been resolved, and also outlined the discussions held and concern raised regarding doorstep lenders and high street stores offering credit at high rates of interest.

The Executive Member presented a report which informed Council of the recent accreditation as an “Achieving Authority” under the Equality Framework for Local Government and provided advice on the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equalities Act 2010 and the implications for individual councillors.

A Member expressed concern regarding accessibility of the new council offices and other buildings in the borough and asked if new regulations gave more power to the authority to require existing buildings to be accessible. He also asked about equal opportunities in recruitment within the authority. In response it was reported that the new council offices would be completely accessible and that all public buildings were compliant. With regard to recruitment, it was stated that under the ‘two tick’ scheme, all disabled applicants meeting the criteria were offered an interview.

Some Members expressed concern that, without fully understanding their responsibilities, they may be exposing themselves to challenges. A Member also felt that as councillors were volunteers and not employees, they could not be expected to maintain awareness of updates to equalities legislation. In response it was explained that under the Equalities Framework both officers and councillors were expected to take direct responsibility for equalities.

In response to another question it was stated that Member input into the Action Plan had been received via the Corporate Equalities Steering Group (CESG), and Members were assured that there would now be cross-party representation on the group. Members were also informed that the Action Plan had arisen from the recommendations of the peer assessment and that the CESG would look at the concerns expressed in detail.

The Leader expressed his view that the issues contained within the report were fundamental issues and should already be embedded in the authority and he expressed disappointment at the negative debate.

On the motion of Ms Witherford, seconded by Mr Bray, it was

RESOLVED –

(i)         The Council’s “Achieving Authority” status be acknowledged;

(ii)        The responsibilities introduced by the Equalities Act 2010 be noted;

(iii)       the action plan and proposal to seek “excellent” accreditation in 2014 be endorsed.

Council was informed of the results of the consultation exercise in relation to the New Homes Bonus (NHB) and process for allocation of funds. Members welcomed the recommendation to transfer 25% of the total annual allocation to relevant parish councils, and it was noted that HBBC was the only district in Leicestershire which was taking such a step at this point.

On the motion of Mr Lynch, seconded by Mr Crooks, it was

RESOLVED – the report be endorsed and the following recommendations be agreed:

(i)         only those parishes subject to new homes development will receive NHB;

(ii)        the mechanism for calculating NHB be the number of new council tax accounts initiated in the previous 12 months;

(iii)       25% of the annual allocation to the Borough Council be transferred to the relevant parish councils;

(iv)       funds be allocated to the relevant parish council (with ‘no strings’);

(v)        funds be rolled over year on year if necessary;

(vi)       an annual report be presented by both the Borough Council and parish councils detailing how NHB has been spent;

(vii)      the allocation of 2010/11 NHB be undertaken as set out in paragraph 5.2 of the report.

Copies of the Green Wedge Review document are included for Members only. Copies can be viewed on the Council’s Website or by contacting the report author.

Members received a report which sought approval of the Green Wedge Review as an evidence-base document for use when preparing Local Development Framework (LDF) documents. Officers were thanked for their hard work. Attention was drawn to the proposed additional recommendations which had been circulated and it was agreed that these be included.

It was moved by Mr Bray, seconded by Mr Nichols and

RESOLVED –

(i)         the review be approved for use as an evidence base when preparing the LDF;

(ii)        a further topic paper be produced to investigate potential new green wedges;

(iii)       the Green Wedge Review document be amended at paragraphs 3.4.3 and 3.4.4 to insert paragraphs 4.28 and 4.38 respectively of the adopted Core Strategy which emphasises the protection function of the green wedge;

(iv)       the Green Wedge Review document be amended at paragraph 3.9.5 to delete the penultimate sentence and replace it with:

            “If it is identified through the investigation of sites for the Site Allocations DPD that suitable and viable sustainable sites cannot be identified within the settlement boundary it may be necessary, having exhausted the review of all brownfield sites, to consider as a last resort investigating alternative land outside the settlement boundary to meet this requirement”;

(v)        the Green Wedge Review be amended to clearly stipulate in section 4.5 (evaluation) that, for the purposes of evaluating the green wedge, any sub area does not need to meet all four of the evaluation criteria to be deemed worthy of protection.

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 Mr Lay, seconded by Mr Bannister, 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.

Having declared an interest in this item, Mr Bray left the meeting at 8.12pm.

A report was presented which sought approval for an option to relocate the operational headquarters from Middlefield Lane.

Some Members expressed concern regarding the proposals and the lack of information regarding impact on the capital programme and links between all current and proposed capital projects. A question was asked regarding vehicle movements, potential noise and access to the site, in response to which the Deputy Chief Executive (Corporate Direction) agreed to circulate a briefing note to Members. Mr Lynch advised Members of the on-site trial which had already taken place and gave assurances about the timing of vehicle movements, which the briefing note would confirm.

Mr Bessant, along with six further Members, requested that voting be recorded on the recommendations contained in the report. The vote was taken as follows:

Mr Bannister, Mr Bill, Mr Cartwright, Mr Cope, Mr Crooks, Mr Gould, Mrs Hall, Mr Hall, Mrs Hodgkins, Mr Hulbert, Mr Inman, Mr Lay, Mr Lynch, Mr Mullaney, Mr Nichols, Miss Taylor and Ms Witherford voted FOR the recommendations (17);

Mr Allen, Mr Batty, Mr Bessant, Mr Boothby, Mrs Camamile, Mr Ladkin, Mr Morrell, Mr O’Shea, Mrs Richards, Mrs Smith, Mrs Sprason and Mr Ward voted AGAINST the recommendations (12);

Mr Sutton abstained from voting.

Therefore on the motion of Mr Lynch, seconded by Mr Nichols, it was

RESOLVED – the recommendations contained within the report be agreed.