Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Bannister and Boothby.

On the motion of Councillor Nichols, seconded by Councillor Crooks, it was

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meeting held on 18 September be confirmed and signed by the Mayor.

The Mayor drew attention to the report “Fairtrade Borough Resolution” which had been omitted from the agenda in error, and the “Council Offices Relocation” report which he had agreed to take as a late item due to the need to make a decision by 13 December.

At this juncture, the Mayor invited two pupils from Westfield Junior School to present pictures to the Council.

No interests were declared.

The Mayor reported on a successful visit of a delegation from Grand Quevilly to Hinckley in September and thanked the Deputy Mayor for deputising for him at the Remembrance Day Service in Groby. He also wished everyone a happy Diwali.

(a)        Question from Councillor Sprason, addressed to Councillor Bray

“Will the leader ensure that this authority will deal with the sale of cars on the roadside that is an issue at Leicester Road, Field Head, Markfield?

The Borough Council is able to take up the powers under the Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982 and introduce a street banning order. Blaby District Council has recently done this – by making a particular street a “Prohibited Street”, under the Act street trading can be banned and action can be taken against individuals who break the ban (i.e. offering vehicles for sale on the highway). So will the leader commit his full support and resources for the immediate introduction of a “Prohibited Street” at Leicester Road, Field Head, Markfield”.

Response from Councillor Gould

I am advised that Blaby District Council introduced a “consented streets” policy under the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982, rather than “prohibited streets” to address issues relating to problems arising from mobile food vendors trading across their district in a similar manner to the controls this authority has used for Hinckley Town Centre. Consents streets allow trading following the issue of an annual consent from the Council and apply conditions for controlling the number, trades and operations of the vendor.  Blaby District Council advise that the issue of car sales on the streets was not part of their decision making process for the introduction of this policy. They also have not used this against persons selling cars on the highway due to concerns over the effectiveness of enforcement.

Officers from this Council have sought advice from other authorities across the country as to using this approach and could find none that had actually used it. The County Council has been promoting this approach whilst stating that solutions under appropriate legislation that they enforce are too expensive for them to consider. The implementation of Traffic Regulation Orders controlling the parking of vehicles would address this issue and others residents’ concerns relating to the parking of vehicles at Markfield.  Enforcement is against the registered keeper of the vehicle rather than seeking to identify the seller of the vehicle.  Your officers and other agencies have sought to identify these sellers with limited success.  Implementation of legislation which can be considered dubious in its effectiveness for this type of problem would be a cost to this authority with no guarantee of resolving the particular problem at Markfield. Notwithstanding this I have requested that this problem is reviewed through the Endeavour multi agency team, the Highways Forum and that through joint working the most appropriate legislation is encouraged to be used to resolve the concerns of residents. We will also issue publicity warning of the risks of purchasing vehicles off the highway following consultation with Leicestershire County Council Trading Standards.

(b)        Question from Councillor Bessant, addressed to Councillor Bray

            With the Authority due to vacate this building in matter of weeks, would the  ...  view the full agenda text for item 262.

(a)        Question from Councillor Sprason, addressed to Councillor Bray

“Will the leader ensure that this authority will deal with the sale of cars on the roadside that is an issue at Leicester Road, Field Head, Markfield?

The Borough Council is able to take up the powers under the Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982 and introduce a street banning order. Blaby District Council has recently done this – by making a particular street a “Prohibited Street”, under the Act street trading can be banned and action can be taken against individuals who break the ban (i.e. offering vehicles for sale on the highway). So will the leader commit his full support and resources for the immediate introduction of a “Prohibited Street” at Leicester Road, Field Head, Markfield”.

Response from Councillor Gould

I am advised that Blaby District Council introduced a “consented streets” policy under the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982, rather than “prohibited streets” to address issues relating to problems arising from mobile food vendors trading across their district in a similar manner to the controls this authority has used for Hinckley Town Centre. Consents streets allow trading following the issue of an annual consent from the Council and apply conditions for controlling the number, trades and operations of the vendor.  Blaby District Council advise that the issue of car sales on the streets was not part of their decision making process for the introduction of this policy. They also have not used this against persons selling cars on the highway due to concerns over the effectiveness of enforcement.

Officers from this Council have sought advice from other authorities across the country as to using this approach and could find none that had actually used it. The County Council has been promoting this approach whilst stating that solutions under appropriate legislation that they enforce are too expensive for them to consider. The implementation of Traffic Regulation Orders controlling the parking of vehicles would address this issue and others residents’ concerns relating to the parking of vehicles at Markfield.  Enforcement is against the registered keeper of the vehicle rather than seeking to identify the seller of the vehicle.  Your officers and other agencies have sought to identify these sellers with limited success.  Implementation of legislation which can be considered dubious in its effectiveness for this type of problem would be a cost to this authority with no guarantee of resolving the particular problem at Markfield. Notwithstanding this I have requested that this problem is reviewed through the Endeavour multi agency team, the Highways Forum and that through joint working the most appropriate legislation is encouraged to be used to resolve the concerns of residents. We will also issue publicity warning of the risks of purchasing vehicles off the highway following consultation with Leicestershire County Council Trading Standards.

(b)        Question from Councillor Bessant, addressed to Councillor Bray

            With the Authority due to vacate this building in matter of weeks, would the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 262.

Mr Mayor, fellow Councillors, Officers, members of the public and the media.

Tonight we will consider two items of great significance for the future economic and social well-being for Hinckley and the surrounding area: the Development Agreement with the developer of the Bus Station site to enable the first practical action to be taken on that site; and a decision on the future location of our leisure centre, with an exciting option being presented for our consideration. I will leave discussion on that for the relevant time on tonight’s agenda, but urge Members to recognise that we have a rare opportunity to unite to make decisions which will secure great benefits for our main town.

Adopting the recommendations before us will ensure that we give leadership, hope and certainty to our communities in a time when finances are increasingly tight. Whilst there remains uncertainty about announcements from the government in late December, with the Local Government Settlement being announced later than ever before (probably on 19 December) and the still to be determined details of Council Tax Discount and Retention of Business Rates, because of the way this Council manages its financial affairs, we are able to drive forward positive change in the confident expectation of success, built on a further round of efficiencies secured for 2013/14. We should all be proud of that!

We should be proud also of our continuing efforts to maintain ‘Fairtrade’ status and the way in which we are engaging young people in the work of the Council: an important investment for the future.

We continue to lobby the government to review and change its stance on many planning issues, most recently on Permitted Development Rights, on which matter I wrote to the Secretary of State at the end of October and on which a formal consultation has now been issued.

As part of the District Councils’ Network, we have finally achieved a measure of success in the now imminent increase in the level of Planning Fees set by the Government. They should be increased, after a gap of dour years, at the end of this month.

We have very recently secured the final agreement on the Regional Growth Fund investment to enable long-awaited improvements to the A5, work on which will commence in 2013. on this issue, and that of Planning Fees, we have achieved success through patience and determination, always remembering the reasons for which we do this work: our residents and businesses

Alongside all of that, we remain constructive and often leading local partners in work relating to Supporting People in Leicestershire (formerly the Troubled Families initiative), Project Endeavour and Health and Well-being. In addition, we have continued a limited ‘free parking’ initiative in Hinckley town centre, which yet again will be enhanced by our subsidising free parking in long stay car parks for the pre-Christmas period, thus giving encouragement to people to shop in the town, providing further support and hope for shops and other local businesses. This has  ...  view the full agenda text for item 263.

In his position statement, the Leader of the Council referred to the items on the agenda for the meeting, lobbying the Government on planning issues, the new Control Centre at MIRA, Supporting People in Leicestershire and the Hinckley Hub. He also mentioned the number of financial issues on which the Government had yet to make announcements.

In presenting the minutes of the Scrutiny Commission meetings on 23 August and 27 September 2012, the Chairman of the Commission highlighted the success of bringing the Housing Repairs service in-house as evidenced in the report reviewing the first six months. He expressed the Commission’s concerns regarding the dangers of door step lenders, and concern for the most vulnerable communities in light of the welfare reforms.

A report was presented which gave the outcome of an options review for the delivery of a new leisure centre. Some Members expressed concern regarding keeping the main leisure facility in the town centre and the resulting difficulty of access for those from outside of Hinckley. In response it was noted that an earlier survey showed the site adjacent to the A47 which had been suggested at one point had not been a preferred site by those living in Barwell and Earl Shilton, and that there was no public transport to the site anyway.

The advantages of working with a development and management partner were discussed. It was noted that at this stage there was no need to agree an option including exact siting, size of leisure centre, facilities provided, and that this would come back to a future meeting.

On the motion of Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Bill, it was unanimously

RESOLVED –

(i)         the building of a new facility to replace the existing leisure centre be approved;

(ii)        the development of a new leisure centre on Argents Mead, subject to maintaining and enhancing the green space and adding value to the park, be approved;

(iii)       the facility options, procurement process and timescales as set out in sections 5 and 6 of the report be approved.

The Mayor has agreed to take this item as a late report as a decision is required by 13 December.

Members were updated on the position regarding moving to the Hinckley Hub site and project budget changes. In response to questions Members were assured that there was a contingency for demolition costs of the current offices, there would be vast benefits of co-location for partners and the public, and that the building would not be pink.

It was moved by Councillor Lynch, seconded by Councillor Bray and

RESOLVED –

(i)         a capital budget of £250,000 be vired from the existing demolition project to the Council Office Relocation project;

(ii)        approved earmarked capital reserves of £338,571 be allocated to the Council Office Relocation project to fund the changes specified;

(iii)       the current revised estimate of costs for the demolition of Argents Mead and move to the Hinckley Hub be noted;

(iv)       the additional budget required to cover the cost of dilapidation works for the offices at Florence House from earmarked reserves be noted.

Members were informed of the success of the local democracy event and activities the children had completed were highlighted around the Chamber and a copy of the qualities expected of a Councillor according to the young people was provided to each Member.

Those Members who had attended the event reported an enjoyable and valuable afternoon and felt that this should be an annual event. It was suggested, however, that secondary school age children should be targeted. Members supported the views of the children and the values that they had put forward as being expected of Members. It was suggested that a plaque be mounted outside the new Chamber with the values on as a reminder to Members and a lasting legacy of the children’s work.

Rebecca Ball and Sherrilee Fahey were thanked for their work on the event and with young people across the Borough. On the motion of Councillor Hulbert, seconded by Councillor Bray, it was

RESOLVED – further local democracy work with children and young people be supported, and the running of a similar event annually during Local Democracy Week be supported.

A report was presented which provided an update on the Borough’s Fairtrade status and progress over the past five years. It was moved by Councillor Gould, seconded by Councillor Hulbert and

RESOLVED – the following statement be approved:

(i)         Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council supports Fairtrade and is aware of how buying Fairtrade products is a strategy for poverty alleviation and sustainable development and creating opportunities for producers and workers who have been economically disadvantaged or marginalised by the conventional trading system;

(ii)        Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council supports the Hinckley & Bosworth Fairtrade Forum Steering Group in its 2012 application to renew the Borough’s Fairtrade Borough status;

(iii)       a lead Councillor continues to be appointed as Fairtrade Champion for the Borough and, as such, be a partner in the Fairtrade Forum Steering Group to ensure Borough Council commitment in the future;

(iv)       the promotion and use of Fairtrade refreshments be supported on all council premises including meeting rooms, community buildings, vending machines, the Hinckley Hub, franchises and included in HBBC procurement procedures;

(v)        awareness of our Fairtrade Borough status among residents and the business community is increased through signage at prominent positions across the Borough, in publications, websites and at events where the Council has an input.

Members received a report following the consultation exercise on the Gambling Policy (Statement of Principles), which had received no adverse comments or objections. On the motion of Councillor Gould, seconded by Councillor Nichols, it was

RESOLVED – the Gambling Policy (Statement of Principles) be adopted.

The report, which had been deferred at the previous meeting for consideration of some aspects by the Planning Committee, was presented to Members. It was noted that Planning Committee’s recommendation was appended to the report. Members discussed the content of the report and the recommended changes to the Constitution and were unable to agree on the majority of the points relating to the Planning Committee except for the start date for speakers registering being the date of agenda publication. All Members did not support the recommended change that a Member be prevented from voting if they had not heard the full debate, as they felt that during a long debate many Members had to have a comfort break, but this did not result in them missing an important part of the debate. They felt that to set out a proportion of time that they could be absent would be difficult to monitor and manage. It was suggested that the Ethical Governance & Personnel Committee be asked to consider whether any changes to the Planning Committee processes were required.

It was therefore

RESOLVED – the following changes to the Constitution be approved:

(i)         changes in paragraph 3.3 of the report relating to the service area of Environmental Health;

(ii)        changes in paragraph 3.4 of the report relating to the service area of Planning;

(iii)       the following changes to Part 4 – Procedure Rules, as set out in paragraph 3.5 of the report:

(a)        only members of the Licensing Committee may sit on a panel for a Licensing Hearing;

(b)        Paragraph 20 – only recording a Member leaving the meeting if they are absent for a decision;

(c)        Speakers at Planning Committee will not be able to register to speak until the agenda has been published (ie a week before the meeting);

(d)        changes resulting from the new Executive arrangements including replacing the Forward Plan with a rolling work programme of Executive decisions;

(iv)       updated role profiles in line with current responsibilities;

(v)        changes in paragraph 3.6 of the report regarding post titles and formatting;

(vi)       changes in paragraph 3.7 of the report regarding the remit of the Overview & Scrutiny function.

(a)        Motion received from Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Gould

“This Council wishes the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to note the following:

Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council believes that local people, through their democratically elected local authorities, are the most suitable judges of what development is acceptable in an area and the suitable level of contributions that developers need to make;

Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council opposes:

·         The Secretary of State's proposals for the Planning Inspectorate to have powers to override agreements between Councils and developers over the number of affordable housing units allocated to planning applications.

·         The Secretary of State’s proposals for planning permission – currently required for extensions of more than three or four metres from the rear wall of any home – to only be needed for those reaching beyond 8m for detached homes and 6m for others  

·         The Secretary of State's intention to override Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1990 which will allow developers to immediately appeal to the Planning Inspectorate over the allocation of affordable housing units in any scheme they maybe concerned with. 

·         The Secretary of State's proposals for the Planning Inspectorate to take planning powers away from local authorities which he deems to be slow or of making poor quality planning decisions in determining applications. 

This Council notes that the current Coalition government did listen earlier in the year over concerns regarding the National Planning Policy Framework and revised its plans accordingly, so urges the Government to listen to the concerns being expressed by the cross-party LGA;

This council however welcomes other parts of the stimulus package including:  

·         £300 million to provide 15,000 affordable homes across the country  

·         An extension of the refurbishment programme to bring an extra 5,000 empty homes back into use  

·         £280m for FirstBuy, the shared equity scheme to give a futher 16,500 first time buyers the chance to own their own homes  

·         Up to £10bn of guarantees to housing associations, property management companies and developers which will be able to use the guarantees to secure lower borrowing costs. This will lead to hundreds of thousands of extra rental homes being built.  

This council also notes: 

·         the record of the previous Labour government on providing affordable social housing – and that during their 13 years in power, the social housing stock fell by another 420,000 houses, as Labour continually failed to build more homes than they were selling off. In the meantime, social housing waiting list soared to almost 1.8million, a rise of 741,000 families.

·         the record of previous Conservative Governments where 1.1 million social homes were lost from the stock during the 18 years of Tory rule up to 1997, through a combination of Right to Buy sales and a failure to invest in replacements. When the Major government left office more than 1 million families were on social housing waiting lists. 

This council resolves to formally write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, outlining this council’s  ...  view the full agenda text for item 271.

(a)        Motion received from Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Gould

“This Council wishes the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to note the following:

Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council believes that local people, through their democratically elected local authorities, are the most suitable judges of what development is acceptable in an area and the suitable level of contributions that developers need to make;

Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council opposes:

·         The Secretary of State's proposals for the Planning Inspectorate to have powers to override agreements between Councils and developers over the number of affordable housing units allocated to planning applications.

·         The Secretary of State’s proposals for planning permission – currently required for extensions of more than three or four metres from the rear wall of any home – to only be needed for those reaching beyond 8m for detached homes and 6m for others  

·         The Secretary of State's intention to override Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1990 which will allow developers to immediately appeal to the Planning Inspectorate over the allocation of affordable housing units in any scheme they maybe concerned with.  

·         The Secretary of State's proposals for the Planning Inspectorate to take planning powers away from local authorities which he deems to be slow or of making poor quality planning decisions in determining applications. 

This Council notes that the current Coalition government did listen earlier in the year over concerns regarding the National Planning Policy Framework and revised its plans accordingly, so urges the Government to listen to the concerns being expressed by the cross-party LGA;

This council however welcomes other parts of the stimulus package including:  

·         £300 million to provide 15,000 affordable homes across the country  

·         An extension of the refurbishment programme to bring an extra 5,000 empty homes back into use  

·         £280m for FirstBuy, the shared equity scheme to give a futher 16,500 first time buyers the chance to own their own homes  

·         Up to £10bn of guarantees to housing associations, property management companies and developers which will be able to use the guarantees to secure lower borrowing costs. This will lead to hundreds of thousands of extra rental homes being built.  

This council also notes: 

·         the record of the previous Labour government on providing affordable social housing – and that during their 13 years in power, the social housing stock fell by another 420,000 houses, as Labour continually failed to build more homes than they were selling off. In the meantime, social housing waiting list soared to almost 1.8million, a rise of 741,000 families.

·         the record of previous Conservative Governments where 1.1 million social homes were lost from the stock during the 18 years of Tory rule up to 1997, through a combination of Right to Buy sales and a failure to invest in replacements. When the Major government left office more than 1 million families were on social housing waiting lists. 

This council resolves to formally write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, outlining this council’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 271.

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 Bray seconded by Councillor Bill, 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 reached almost 9.30pm and on the motion of Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Bill, it was

RESOLVED – the meeting be permitted to continue to the conclusion of all business in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 9.

Council received a report regarding the development agreement for the bus station site in Hinckley. On the motion of Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Bill, it was

RESOLVED – the recommendation contained within the report be approved.