Agenda and minutes

Apologies were submitted on behalf of Councillors Mrs Hall and Inman, with the substitution of Councillor Mayne for Councillor Hall authorised in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 6 March 2014.

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

RESOLVED - The minutes of the meeting held on 6 March be confirmed and signed by the Chairman.

To be advised of any additional items of business which the Chairman decides by reason of special circumstances shall be taken as matters of urgency at this meeting.

The Chairman had agreed to accept an update on the Green Space Delivery Plan as an urgent item following its withdrawal from the Council agenda.

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.

Councillor Hulbert declared that he was employed by the George Ward Centre who were listed as applying for a Parish & Community Initiative Fund grant in agenda item 6.

The Scrutiny Commission was provided with a verbal update on the progress towards a Council decision on the Green Space Delivery Plan. It was heard that, following recommendations from the last meeting of the Scrutiny Commission, amendments had been made to the Plan which would impact on the Special Expenses Area. The report had therefore been withdrawn from the Council agenda for 8 April and would be reconsidered by the Hinckley Area Committee before going to Council.

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive (Community Direction).

Members were presented with the list of suggested grants to be made from the Parish and Community Initiative Fund for 2014/15 which had been recommended by the panel. It was reported that 29 applications had been received, totalling around £130,000. The applications had been assessed and a total of £98,549 of grants was recommended. Members were reminded that a maximum of £10,000 per parish could be requested and that any grant given must be match-funded by the parish.

Discussion ensued on whether the maximum amount that could be applied for should be set according to the size of the parish as some members felt that parishes with more residents required more money, whereas other members felt that larger parishes had more access to other funding and had the resources to make applications for such funding. Officers suggested calculating the grants paid over the past few years on a £/per head basis to demonstrate the distribution across parishes of varying sizes.

There was also discussion on the possibility of increasing the maximum amount per grant, or having a special grant for larger projects. It was requested that a report be brought back to the Scrutiny Commission on the possibility of having a special fund for larger projects and how this would be allocated.

RESOLVED –

(i)         the recommended allocations be endorsed;

(ii)        the carry forward request be supported;

(iii)       a report be prepared for a future meeting on the possibility of a special fund for larger projects.

The Development Consortium for the Earl Shilton SUE will be in attendance to give a presentation and provide an update on plans for the SUE.

It was noted that this had been deferred to a later meeting as the developers were not yet in a position to present the application details.

Work programme attached.

Members are also asked to agree a date for an additional meeting to consider the Medium Term Financial Strategy before consideration by Council in May.

Members considered the work programme for the remainder of the current municipal year and also items for next year’s work programme. The following points were raised for consideration as work programme items:

• Core Strategy Policy 15 regarding the requirement for 40% affordable housing should be reviewed and this process should commence with a report to the Scrutiny Commission;
• The Council’s viability strategy required review;
• The Gypsy & Traveller accommodation policy had not allowed for in-migration so should be reviewed;
• Concern regarding where funding for regeneration in Barwell & Earl Shilton would come from as members had believed it would come from developers, but developers said it would come from the New Homes Bonus. There was also discussion on parishes not having the power to deliver regeneration with their share of the New Homes Bonus, and on the restrictions on CIL compliance;
• The need for serious consideration regarding appeals and the funding of costs;
• The confusion caused with the re-consultation on the site allocations document and the discontent amongst parishes;
• The problems of pollution in the Borough and need to review air quality;
• The public concern about the County Council’s changes to street lighting;
• The need to look at the County Council’s plans to improve cycling routes;
• The sporting opportunities offered in the borough should be reviewed to ensure provision for all ages and sporting abilities;
• Support to charities and voluntary organisations should be reviewed;
• An update on planning enforcement was due, and concern was expressed regarding workload and pressure on planning officers.

It was suggested that the abovementioned planning policy matters be brought in one report, and the requested information on funding regeneration in Barwell & Earl Shilton be brought to the same meeting as the Earl Shilton SUE.