Agenda and minutes

Apologies were submitted on behalf of Councillors Bessant and Nichols, with Councillor Moore substituting for Councillor Bessant and Councillor Mayne substituting for Councillor Nichols in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4.3.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2012.

On the motion of Councillor Morrell, seconded by Councillor Hall, it was

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2012 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman.

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.

No interests were declared at this stage.

To hear any questions in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10.

A question asked at the previous meeting is being carried forward as a response could not be provided at the meeting. The question and response is below, and the Member will have the opportunity to ask a supplementary question.

Question received from Councillor Batty:

“Could we please have full disclosure on the information pertaining to the sale of land at the former Stoke Road Boys’ Club? Particularly, can we please have the final net figures in respect of the capital receipt to include discounts, re-imbursement of fees or reductions, for ground abnormals?”

Response provided following the meeting:

Please find below the details of the negotiated land sale with Morris Homes as requested.

1. The total purchase price agreed wit Morris Homes is £2.3 million
2. A deposit of 10% has been paid so this reduces the amount remaining to £2,070,000.00
3. On completion (i.e. when we sell the land) we will then receive £931,500.00 (45% of the purchase price, less the deposit)
4. Then twelve months after completion the remaining monies will be paid over (£1,238,500.00)
5. In the legal agreement there is a longstop date of the 30th April 2012 for the payment of the balance following completion.  As this has not completed this payment has not been made as the agreement is not in place. The monies are therefore now due on the 3rd January 2013, which is the date after which the decision cannot be judicially reviewed.

Morris Homes have also committed to construct the adoptable access road at the beginning of the scheme working in close liaison with Richmond Primary school alongside a new pedestrian gate, double timer controlled vehicle gates and integration of right hand footpath to meet existing site footpath. Therefore no monies are due to be received by LCC as a result of these negotiations.

On the 16^th December 2009 and subsequent to the sale negotiations an independent valuation of the site was instructed at a cost of £350.  In addition to this it was negotiated that there will be no deductions for abnormal under the contract therefore the only sum to be deducted from the capital receipt would be the valuation fee.

I hope this answers the question raised above.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10, the following question had been asked at the previous meeting but was carried forward as a response could not be provided at that time.

Question received from Councillor Batty:

“Could we please have full disclosure on the information pertaining to the sale of land at the former Stoke Road Boys’ Club? Particularly, can we please have the final net figures in respect of the capital receipt to include discounts, re-imbursement of fees or reductions, for ground abnormals?”

Response provided following the meeting:

Please find below the details of the negotiated land sale with Morris Homes as requested.

1. The total purchase price agreed wit Morris Homes is £2.3 million
2. A deposit of 10% has been paid so this reduces the amount remaining to £2,070,000.00
3. On completion (i.e. when we sell the land) we will then receive £931,500.00 (45% of the purchase price, less the deposit)
4. Then twelve months after completion the remaining monies will be paid over (£1,238,500.00)
5. In the legal agreement there is a longstop date of the 30th April 2012 for the payment of the balance following completion.  As this has not completed this payment has not been made as the agreement is not in place. The monies are therefore now due on the 3rd January 2013, which is the date after which the decision cannot be judicially reviewed.

Morris Homes have also committed to construct the adoptable access road at the beginning of the scheme working in close liaison with Richmond Primary school alongside a new pedestrian gate, double timer controlled vehicle gates and integration of right hand footpath to meet existing site footpath. Therefore no monies are due to be received by LCC as a result of these negotiations.

On the 16^th December 2009 and subsequent to the sale negotiations an independent valuation of the site was instructed at a cost of £350.  In addition to this it was negotiated that there will be no deductions for abnormal under the contract therefore the only sum to be deducted from the capital receipt would be the valuation fee.

I hope this answers the question raised above.

Following consideration of this response it was

RESOLVED – a report be brought to the following meeting of the Commission.

Representatives of the East Midlands Ambulance Service (EMAS) will be in attendance to discuss the proposals to restructure provision in the region.

Representatives of East Midlands Ambulance Service (EMAS) attended to present their proposals for new ‘hubs’, providing a historical context for the proposals including the label given to EMAS by the press of ‘a failing organisation’. It was reported that although they had improved and attained some of their targets, they were well below the national standard in others, and relationships both internally and externally were poor. The intention was now to ‘be the best’ and it was hoped that the restructuring of the service would achieve that aspiration.

During presentation and in response to questions, the following points were raised by representatives of EMAS:

• A 5% improvement in response times would means tens of thousands of additional patients receiving a service which met targets each year;
• Cover across the region would not be reduced and availability to respond to emergencies would be maximised under the new arrangements;
• Costs for EMAS would be reduced by approximately £0.5m per annum and any redundancies would not affect frontline staff, in fact it was anticipated that there would be approximately 18 new care staff;
• The number of hubs was still under consultation and consideration;
• The proposals for changes in the way the service operates were based on evidence gathered from the best performing services in the country.

Members expressed concern regarding the lack of hubs in the Hinckley & Bosworth area and whether the proposals would actually mean improvement for residents of the Borough.

Representatives of EMAS were thanked for their attendance and Members agreed to respond to the consultation both individually and as a Commission.

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 Moore seconded by Councillor Morrell, 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 ? and 10 of Part I of Schedule 12A of that Act.

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive (Community Direction) attached.

Members were updated on the position regarding the bus station site and were asked to support the recommendation to Council. It was therefore

RESOLVED – the recommendation to Council be supported.

Following the end of the previous item, members of the press and public were re-admitted to the meeting.

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive (Community Direction) attached.

Members were presented with a report regarding options for the delivery of a new leisure centre and were appraised of the ensuing process and timescales. It was explained that the existing facility was spacious, but some areas were underused, therefore a new leisure centre would be designed based upon the amount of usage each area received.

The importance of the new building being more efficient and also more environmentally friendly was discussed, and the potential for receiving funding or working with a development and management partner were considered. It was explained that options, costs, facilities etc would be part of the proposals in the tender process, and Members were also assured that grants would be sought where possible, but that there was not the same availability of them in the current economic and funding climate.

Report and proposed consultation response attached.

Members were presented with a proposed response to the Bus Subsidy Reform consultation. Members asked that the response to question 6 be strengthened and the importance of bus operator grants be emphasised.

RESOLVED – the requested amendments to the response be made and submitted.

Work programme attached.

It was requested that a copy of the dementia review be sent to the Government with a letter of support for their appeal to help people with dementia.

RESOLVED – the abovementioned request be actioned.

Copy of the Forward Plan for November 2012 to February 2013 attached.

The forward plan was noted.

(a)        Response to queries at previous meeting regarding affordable housing

At the meeting of the Scrutiny Commission held on 27 September, questions were asked under two different items, to which responses were requested. These were provided as follows:

(i)         Under the item on Welfare Reforms, it was felt that there may be more need for affordable housing with fewer bedrooms (one and two bedroom properties) to avoid paying subsidies for under-occupancy. Members asked if the relevant policy would need to be revised.

In response, it has been stated that planning policy documents relating to affordable housing are Policy 15 of the Core Strategy and the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document. Paragraph 6.12 of the Affordable Housing SPD states that the mix of affordable housing may be negotiated on individual sites. This gives us flexibility to respond to changing needs and policies, including the welfare reform issues. What has therefore changed is not that the policy needs revising, but that officers’ negotiations on every site have changed in response to welfare reform (for example they are now asking for more 1 bed flats and 2 bed houses).

(ii)        Whilst discussing the work programme a report was requested on the impact of developers’ requesting a reduction in the percentage of affordable housing they provide on the affordable housing numbers trajectory.

            In response, it has been explained that whilst the housing trajectory covers the delivery of new dwellings, there is no trajectory for affordable housing. Its delivery is set out in Policy 15 of the Core Strategy which indicates the levels above which we would expect a percentage of affordable housing to be provided on site. We can’t quantify the numbers of affordable housing that may be delivered as it depends on the proposed number of dwellings on a site as to whether the threshold for provision is crossed. There is no overall target for affordable housing provision. It is therefore felt that a report on this would not be possible.

(b)        Minutes of the Barwell & Earl Shilton Scrutiny Group, 24 September 2012 (attached).

(a)        Affordable housing

Members were provided with a response to a question raised at the previous meeting with regard to affordable housing, including a query about the shortfall in affordable housing due to developers raising viability issues and not being able to provide the level of affordable housing prescribed in the policy. It was requested that a report be provided to a future meeting on the resulting likely shortfall.

(b)        Barwell & Earl Shilton Scrutiny Group

A member of the Scrutiny group reported that further details of the sewage, transport and sustainability issues were still awaited.