(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 leader of the council please update members on progress in securing the £3M capital receipt from the site as promised to residents of this Borough is his recent Medium Term Financial Strategy?
Response from Councillor Lynch
I thank Cllr Bessant for asking this question. As he is fully aware the MTFS is not a promise it is a strategy which like all good strategies has to be flexible and which is rolled forward and updated with every annual budget or change in circumstances.
The original concept for potential development on the Argents Mead park could have realised the sort of returns originally suggested on developments around the periphery of the site including possible joint developments with the vicarage site (which is no longer possible) and the other sites that did not meet with general approval such as development on a part of the Mount Rd. car park.
This administration has been consistent in considering acceptable a suitable development on a part of the site that is sympathetic to the Mead and areas around the current offices. Having consulted on options for a retirement village that would in principal have met this requirement, the current depressed economic climate has meant that the responses to the tender invitation were poor and none of the responses would have delivered an acceptable capital receipt for the Council.
We have reacted very quickly in considering the option of building a new leisure centre on this site and the option appraisal which is contained in the report to be considered by Council under Agenda Item 10 supports that proposal. This will mean that the Leisure Centre, which will embrace the green areas of the Mead, will remain in the Town Centre and the footfall will continue to support businesses in Hinckley and thereby ensure the continued vibrancy of the town centre. This option will also generate a capital receipt of up to £2.2million towards the funding of the new Leisure Centre from the sale of the existing site. I will also point out to Councillor Bessant that funding for the new leisure centre has been fully considered and budgetary provision has been made to deliver a realistic and affordable facility, unlike the fanciful and ill formed proposal of the previous Conservative administration.
(c) Question from Councillor Bessant, addressed to Councillor Bray
Would the lead member for planning please update Members on progress of the Barwell SUE and when he expects the full application to come forward to planning committee, and what his best guess is for ground to be broken on this development?
Response from Councillor Bray
I can confirm good progress is being made in bringing together the technical requirements and identifying the community infrastructure proposals for the Barwell SUE planning application. The target date for consideration of the application by Planning Committee is March 2013. I am informed by the Developer that, subject to approval in March 2013, the first phases of the development would start early 2014, with the first houses being completed later that year.
Minutes:
(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 leader of the council please update members on progress in securing the £3M capital receipt from the site as promised to residents of this Borough is his recent Medium Term Financial Strategy?
Response from Councillor Lynch
I thank Cllr Bessant for asking this question. As he is fully aware the MTFS is not a promise it is a strategy which like all good strategies has to be flexible and which is rolled forward and updated with every annual budget or change in circumstances.
The original concept for potential development on the Argents Mead park could have realised the sort of returns originally suggested on developments around the periphery of the site including possible joint developments with the vicarage site (which is no longer possible) and the other sites that did not meet with general approval such as development on a part of the Mount Rd. car park.
This administration has been consistent in considering acceptable a suitable development on a part of the site that is sympathetic to the Mead and areas around the current offices. Having consulted on options for a retirement village that would in principal have met this requirement, the current depressed economic climate has meant that the responses to the tender invitation were poor and none of the responses would have delivered an acceptable capital receipt for the Council.
We have reacted very quickly in considering the option of building a new leisure centre on this site and the option appraisal which is contained in the report to be considered by Council under Agenda Item 10 supports that proposal. This will mean that the Leisure Centre, which will embrace the green areas of the Mead, will remain in the Town Centre and the footfall will continue to support businesses in Hinckley and thereby ensure the continued vibrancy of the town centre. This option will also generate a capital receipt of up to £2.2million towards the funding of the new Leisure Centre from the sale of the existing site. I will also point out to Councillor Bessant that funding for the new leisure centre has been fully considered and budgetary provision has been made to deliver a realistic and affordable facility, unlike the fanciful and ill formed proposal of the previous Conservative administration.
(c) Question from Councillor Bessant, addressed to Councillor Bray
Would the lead member for planning please update Members on progress of the Barwell SUE and when he expects the full application to come forward to planning committee, and what his best guess is for ground to be broken on this development?
Response from Councillor Bray
I can confirm good progress is being made in bringing together the technical requirements and identifying the community infrastructure proposals for the Barwell SUE planning application. The target date for consideration of the application by Planning Committee is March 2013. I am informed by the Developer that, subject to approval in March 2013, the first phases of the development would start early 2014, with the first houses being completed later that year.