Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Bray and Wallace, with the substitution of Councillor Mr Cop for Councillor Bray authorised in accordance with council procedure rule 4.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 8 December 2016.

On the motion of Councillor Camamile, seconded by Councillor Sutton, it was

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meeting held on 8 December 2016 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman.

Advice was sought in relation to the Developing Communities Fund and whether parish councillors should declare an interest in the item on the agenda. Members were advised that, whilst the Scrutiny Commission was not making a decision on the projects to be funded, it would be wise to declare a personal interest.

Councillors Camamile, Crooks, Lay, Lynch, Wallace and Williams declared a personal interest in item 10 “Implementation of the Developing Communities Fund”.

Toby Sanders, Caroline Trevithick and Nick Willmott and Sue Venables will be in attendance on behalf of the CCG to provide an update to the Scrutiny Commission.

Toby Sanders, Caroline Trevithick, Nick Willmott and Sue Venables were in attendance to provide an update on the CCG’s review of local healthcare provision. Proposals and the capital required to fund these, both in the Hinckley area and the Leicester hospitals, were outlined and discussed. Improvements to GP services in Earl Shilton, Barwell and Burbage were also highlighted. Concerns were raised over the need for enhanced facilities in the areas of the borough experiencing growth and reference was made to the Hollycroft estate and the impact of development of land west of Hinckley.

Members emphasised the importance of a joined-up approach with the Warwickshire hospitals, and the Chief Executive made reference to a recent meeting with lead members and the Chief Executive of the George Eliot Hospital where reassurance was provided about the future of A&E services at the hospital. The opportunity was identified for a key role of the council in advising in relation to housing development and population growth and supporting people in their own homes. A forthcoming meeting on Section 106 contributions, which an HBBC officer would be attending, was mentioned.

Councillor Sutton left the meeting at 7.20pm.

Members requested that the Scrutiny Commission be kept updated on the review and receive further presentations when there was progress to report.

To present the Corporate Plan 2017 to 2021 and seek endorsement to Council.

The Scrutiny Commission gave consideration to the Corporate Plan for 2017 to 2021. The chairman welcomed the level of involvement that cross-party senior members had been afforded in the development of the plan. It was moved by Councillor Camamile, seconded by Councillor Cope and

RESOLVED – the Corporate Plan 2017 to 2021 be endorsed and RECOMMENDED to Council.

Councillor Hall left the meeting at 7.40pm.

To present the proposed HBBC Pay Policy Statement for 2017/18.

Members were presented with the pay police statement 2017/18. A member welcomed the authority paying above the living wage. It was moved by Councillor Crooks, seconded by Councillor Camamile and

RESOLVED – the pay policy statement be endorsed and RECOMMENDED to Council.

To inform members of available burial ground within the borough in response to a request of the Scrutiny Commission to review the position.

In response to a request of the Scrutiny Commission, members received a report on availability of burial land. It was noted that, in the short to medium term, sufficient land was available. A member suggested that land in the cemetery for his parish required diocese permission to use and this accounted for the discrepancy between the borough council and parish estimates. Discussion ensued on the need for crematoria and it was noted that the business case for a crematorium in the borough was being developed. It was requested that this be brought to the Commission in due course if pursued.

RESOLVED –

(i)            The report and results of the survey be noted;

(ii)           The report be sent to all parish councils to assist them in planning their future burial provision;

(iii)          Any future report on crematorium feasibility be brought to the Scrutiny Commission.

To seek the views of the Scrutiny Commission on the delivery of the Developing Communities Fund.

The Scrutiny Commission gave consideration to the delivery of the Developing Communities Fund (DCF) including the criteria, process and amount of funding available for each project.

Following discussion whereby various options were considered, it was moved by Councillor Lay and seconded by Councillor Camamile that:

“(i)        The following eligibility criteria be recommended to Council:

(a)  The minimum project size of £30,000;

(b)  The minimum parish contribution be set at 35% (irrespective of housing growth or council tax level);

(c)  The parish must be committed to a neighbourhood plan;

(d)  No funding for highways improvements;

(e)  Must meet HBBC corporate plan priorities;

(f)   No more than one project to be funded per parish;

(g)  Projects must be completed within three years of an offer being made;

(h)  Only those projects submitted as an expression of interest in December 2016 are eligible for application to the fund at this stage.

(ii)        The maximum contribution from the council to any bid be set at £350,000;

(iii)       The suggestion be included in documentation that parishes can join together to submit a bid. This would ensure smaller parishes are not disadvantaged by the set minimum project size.”

Councillors Bill and Lynch wished it to be recorded that they felt the fund should be available to the Hinckley area as Hinckley residents had contributed to the fund and found it unfair that Hinckley residents would not benefit from capital projects under the fund. In response, some members felt that over several years, Hinckley had benefited from a great deal of capital investment funded by the borough but not for the benefit of residents across the whole borough and that the criteria for the DCF was fair.

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

RESOLVED – the following be RECOMMENDED to Council:

(i)         The fund size be set at a maximum of £1,400,000 for applications to the DCF;

(ii)        The following eligibility criteria be established:

(a)          The minimum project size of £30,000;

(b)          The minimum parish contribution be set at 35% (irrespective of housing growth or council tax level);

(c)          The parish must be committed to a neighbourhood plan;

(d)          No funding for highways improvements;

(e)          Must meet HBBC corporate plan priorities;

(f)           No more than one project to be funded per parish;

(g)          Projects must be completed within three years of an offer being made;

(h)          Only those projects submitted as an expression of interest in December 2016 are eligible for application to the fund at this stage.

(iii)       The maximum contribution from the council to any bid be set at £350,000;

(iv)       The suggestion be included in documentation that parishes can join together to submit a bid to the DCF.

Councillors Crooks and Morrell left the meeting at 8.25pm.

To brief the Commission on the findings of the completed Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA).

Members were briefed on the findings of the completed Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) and the implications for Hinckley & Bosworth and on the Leicester and Leicestershire joint statement of cooperation, which outlined how the local authorities would work together.

It was explained that most districts, including Hinckley & Bosworth, had capacity for future growth, whereas Leicester City and Oadby & Wigston had little capacity and therefore their need may have to be met outside of those areas. A member suggested this was unfair on the other districts which were continuing to receive a large amount of development. The importance of consultation with members and the public, should this be necessary, was highlighted.

Concern was expressed in relation to infrastructure capacity to cope with the growth, and in response it was confirmed that all agencies were maintaining communication in relation to this and were trying to achieve infrastructure up front to support growth. It was noted that a bid for Government funding for infrastructure support was available. The impact on the health, fire and police services was also highlighted.

It was noted that this evidence base would inform the development of growth plans for the county and officers would be facilitating engagement with members and the public at various stages of local growth and development plans in accordance with the Local Development Scheme agreed by Council in January 2017.

RESOLVED – the report be noted.

The Scrutiny Commission gave consideration to the work programme to 2018. Attention was drawn to the review of the waste service requested for the April meeting.