Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Bessant, with the substitution of Councillor Richards authorised in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4.

It was moved by Councillor Nichols, seconded by Councillor Morrell and

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meetings held on 3 and 17 July be confirmed and signed by the Chairman.

No interests were declared at this stage.

The Scrutiny Commission received a report on the Economic Regeneration Strategy which highlighted work undertaken over the previous year, ongoing initiatives and progress towards achieving the aims of the Action Plan.

Discussion ensued regarding the roll out of superfast broadband and in response to a member’s question it was explained that whilst it wasn’t possible to say how many properties would benefit, the contribution of £58,000 from this authority was small in comparison to the total project funding and also represented excellent value for money. It was reported that Leicestershire County Council was bidding for more funding with the intention that eventually the whole of the county would have superfast broadband. It was also reported that the county council would update its website as the roll out progressed. This would start in the next few weeks.

With regard to the work at MIRA, it was noted that officers had supported the successful bid for the new £10m training centre that North Warwickshire & Hinckley College would manage the training centre on the site, which was of benefit to this borough, and that the site in its entirety would draw employers from outside of the Midlands.

A member asked how many self-employed people were operating in the borough and what was being done to support them. In response it was stated that two events had been held for small businesses to help them to grow and that the BID also supported small businesses in partnership with the council.

In response to a question regarding farm diversification and contact with the National Farmers’ Union (NFU), it was reported that annual meetings were held with the NFU and also that if the LEADER project was successful, more work would be undertaken in that area.

RESOLVED – the report be noted and welcomed and progress on economic regeneration activities within the borough be endorsed.

Members received a report which provided an update on progress towards delivery of a new Leisure Centre. Members were reminded that the main topic for debate was the outcome of site investigation work and associated budget implications, however it was acknowledged that a commitment had been given to answer outstanding questions on the facilities to be provided within the new Leisure Centre and to allow for debate thereon.

Representatives from the Project Board were present, and representatives from Hinckley Swimming Club and the Amateur Swimming Association were invited to speak at the meeting. It was acknowledged that this was a departure from the Procedure Rules, but agreed that it would be useful to hear representations directly from those making them.

With regard to the ground conditions on the site of the former Council Offices, it was reported that due to the running sand found on site, piling would be required to a depth of 20m. The cost of the additional works would total £889,678. It was explained that this would be funded partly from the contingency set aside, and the remainder from the Hub rental future management reserve, which was no longer required for that purpose.

Some members stated they had heard that, following enquiries over ten years earlier, it had been indicated that the ground conditions in Hinckley were abnormal and the outcome of the ground condition surveys should have been foreseen or perhaps surveys should have been carried out sooner. In response officers stated they had no knowledge of the meetings where this was raised and that the former Council Offices had stood on the same footprint without issue. In addition, the presence of that building on the site prevented a full site survey which had then been taken at the earliest opportunity. It was explained also that undertaking a procurement process with costs based on normal ground conditions, with the expectation of carrying out ground condition surveys at a later stage, was not unusual. It was suggested that in future consideration be given to undertaking ground condition surveys at an initial stage.

During further discussion, the following points were raised and responses provided:

-       The revised opening date of the leisure centre having to be deferred slightly, but being no later than spring 2016. The current leisure centre would continue operating until the new centre opens, with existing staff transferring to the new operator

-       The change of name would not affect guarantees and the guarantee would be direct from the parent company

-       In response to a confusion with regard to the reduction in footprint, it was explained that the reduction had occurred during the development stage (following the initial bid), but this had resulted in an increase in internal floor space. The net saving from the reduction in footprint would go towards making more effective use of the additional internal floor space

-       The restrictions on sponsoring competing facilities would not affect small facilities, as it was only applicable to similar facilities within a two  ...  view the full minutes text for item 141.