The following questions have been received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.1, and answers provided as follows:
(a) Question from Councillor Ward to the Executive Member for rural affairs
Given that we now know the amount budgeted by the Council for rural broadband will be match funded by the same amount by BT and mindful of the importance of the growth of the rural economy to the future of this Borough, will the Council now substantially increase the amount it is prepared to commit to delivering this much needed service.
Response from Councillor Gould
The Council has agreed nearly £60,000 toward rural broadband, which we agree is an important matter. No payments have been made yet by any Council, pending a review of the model by BT. This Council is committing more than three other Councils in Leicestershire, two of which are Tory controlled.
(b) Question from Councillor Morrell to the Leader of the Council
Can the Executive member please explain why the Council’s Executive voted unanimously to make a contribution of £49,000 from tax payer funds to a private members’ squash club to provide an extra squash court at their new facility at Tungsten Park, when this facility should be included for the unrestricted use of Borough residents in the Council’s new leisure centre.
Response from Councillor Cope
The Officers report to Executive in November set out quite clearly the rationale for supporting the contribution of £49,000 to the new state of the art Hinckley squash facility, proposed to be built at Tungsten Park. The facility, which will cost approximately £1m, will not only replace the existing and outdated courts on the site of the bus station (which have to be relocated, as part of the overall development), but will provide four courts with ancillary modern facilities. In addition, the Council contribution will lever support from Squash and Racket England, who will contribute at least another £25,000.
The contribution will be conditional on a management agreement being put in place to open up the facility for public and school use. I am advised such agreements are in place with other local authorities in partnership with Squash and Racket England for similar facilities elsewhere in the country.
This initiative will guarantee the provision of professional, state of the art squash facilities for the public.
The added benefit for the area is that this will enable regional competitions to be played which cannot be hosted anywhere else in the Borough because of the lack of suitable facilities.
(c) Question from Councillor Morrell to the Leader of the Council
Car parking at the Hinckley Hub continues to present challenges not only at the Hub itself but in surrounding areas, so much so that it has recently been referred to by members of the public as a pantomime. Does the Leader now regret the hasty move to this site when a more considered approach could have delivered new Council offices and a new leisure centre with all the shared savings on the old Council offices site and surrounding area and at the same time kept Council staff and visitors in the Town centre, giving Castle Street a much needed boost.
Response from the Leader of the Council
I agree with the previous Conservative Leader that the move to the Hub was “a no-brainer”. The speeches at the official opening by Steve Atkinson, a senior civil servant from DWP and a Conservative County Councillor highlighted the huge savings to the public purse.
Locating the new Leisure Centre on the Argents Mead site will ensure its users, estimated to be in excess of 600,000 per year, will be attracted to not only the shops in Castle Street, but the new shopping and leisure facilities in the Crescent scheme.
I have asked for an urgent review of car parking linked to the Hub to be undertaken, and am reassured there are a number of potential options for increasing parking nearby.
(d) Question from Councillor Batty to the Leader of the Council
When adopting the Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Study at a meeting of the Executive in October 2013 the Leader of the Council stated that he welcomed this document as it illustrated that the Borough Council had a 5 year supply of pitches and that the Council did not need to accept any more applications. In view of recent conflicting claims that this evidence base may be flawed and in the light of an impending application for a gypsy/traveller caravan site in my ward, can the Leader please confirm whether the statement that the above statement made by him in October still applies?
Response from the Leader of the Council
I take issue over your claim that the evidence base is flawed. As you are well aware, the methodology adopted by this Council has substantially reduced the requirement that was identified both in the Core Strategy and the more recent county wide Gypsy and Traveller Needs Study.
It was interesting that Councillor Batty attended the Executive meeting but never requested to speak on the item.
(e) Question from Councillor Batty
Can the Executive member please explain the significance of the long delay in the Council completing its site allocations document in the context of developer appeals and provide an indication of the cost of appeals for the financial years from 2009/10 through to 2014/15, this to include all the Council’s costs and costs awarded against the Council.
Response from the Leader of the Council
The Site Allocations and Development Management document is programmed to be reported to January Scrutiny and January Council prior to consultation on the submission draft to Government for formal examination. There has been extensive work undertaken on reviewing representations from the previous draft document, which you recall attracted over 13,000 representations. Over the last year, there has been dialogue and meetings with local Ward Members in respect of the proposed sites and a cross party Member Working Group has been reviewing the draft Development Management policies that form a key part of the document, a process with which you have been involved.
In addition, you will also be aware that extensive work has had to be undertaken on technical evidence based documents (which are all available on the web site), to underpin the proposed allocations and policies. We know from the experience elsewhere in Leicestershire that, without this work, the Government is rejecting plans and providing a ‘free for all’ for developers to push forward speculative applications for development.
The estimated cost of appeals for the period 2009/10 to 2013/14 is £241,474.00 over the 5 years 2009-2014.
(f) Question from Councillor Ladkin to the Leader of the Council
(i) Bearing in mind the huge amount of publicity given to the Council’s very significant financial commitment to the Bus Station development and its’ determination to deliver the completed scheme in 2015 can the Executive member please advise us on whether this has led to an increased level of interest from potential tenants in the scheme and whether the developer has any firm interest in any of the retail or restaurant units.
(ii) Having waived the £2.75m capital receipt in exchange for a speculative profit share agreement, can the Executive member provide any assurance that the developer now benefitting from this “windfall” will not be approaching existing town centre businesses offering “incentives” to induce them to relocate to the Bus Station development, hence undermining the future viability of Castle Street and the established town centre.
Response from the Leader of the Council
The Crescent regeneration scheme for the bus station site is an exciting new shopping and leisure scheme, which will feature a new cinema (Cineworld) and major new supermarket (Sainsbury’s), which of course the Conservative Group opposed. Tin Hat Regeneration Partnership are in ongoing dialogue with other operators and announcements will be made in due course. These discussions remain commercially confidential.
Decisions for all commercial enterprises are for them to determine. We will not be encouraging the developer to target existing businesses. We can not prevent such businesses from taking their own investment decisions, particularly if the alternative is for the businesses to choose to close and relocate out of the town centre, due to lack of suitable premises.
(g) Question from Councillor Allen to the Leader of the Council
Can the Executive member please confirm when the document “Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Study” dated January 2013 was received by the Council and whether it has been necessary to make any changes from that document prior to it being considered by the full council.
Response from the Leader of the Council
The Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs study was finally completed in April 2013 following the completion of the surveys of potential of existing sites to be accommodated additional pitches.
(h) Question from Councillor Richards to the Leader of the Council
Can the Executive member please explain the logic behind recommending a supplementary budget of £30,600 for parking permits for Hinckley Hub staff when it has requested £25,000 from businesses in the Town Centre Partnership to help provide parking concessions to generate more shopping footfall in the Town centre.
Response from the Leader of the Council
The supplementary budget approval at Executive recently was required under Financial Regulations to account for the long stay parking permits purchased by Leicestershire County Council for their staff on their occupation of the Hub in July 2013. This was not forecast within the 13-14 budget. As of last night, the Council has now secured a contribution of £10,000 from the BID for the next year, subject to a positive ballot for a second term.
Minutes:
The following questions were received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.1, and answers provided as follows:
(a) Question from Councillor Ward to the Executive Member for rural affairs
Given that we now know the amount budgeted by the Council for rural broadband will be match funded by the same amount by BT and mindful of the importance of the growth of the rural economy to the future of this Borough, will the Council now substantially increase the amount it is prepared to commit to delivering this much needed service.
Response from Councillor Gould
The Council has agreed nearly £60,000 toward rural broadband, which we agree is an important matter. No payments have been made yet by any Council, pending a review of the model by BT. This Council is committing more than three other Councils in Leicestershire, two of which are Tory controlled.
(b) Question from Councillor Morrell to the Leader of the Council
Can the Executive member please explain why the Council’s Executive voted unanimously to make a contribution of £49,000 from tax payer funds to a private members’ squash club to provide an extra squash court at their new facility at Tungsten Park, when this facility should be included for the unrestricted use of Borough residents in the Council’s new leisure centre.
Response from Councillor Cope
The Officers report to Executive in November set out quite clearly the rationale for supporting the contribution of £49,000 to the new state of the art Hinckley squash facility, proposed to be built at Tungsten Park. The facility, which will cost approximately £1m, will not only replace the existing and outdated courts on the site of the bus station (which have to be relocated, as part of the overall development), but will provide four courts with ancillary modern facilities. In addition, the Council contribution will lever support from Squash and Racket England, who will contribute at least another £25,000.
The contribution will be conditional on a management agreement being put in place to open up the facility for public and school use. I am advised such agreements are in place with other local authorities in partnership with Squash and Racket England for similar facilities elsewhere in the country.
This initiative will guarantee the provision of professional, state of the art squash facilities for the public.
The added benefit for the area is that this will enable regional competitions to be played which cannot be hosted anywhere else in the Borough because of the lack of suitable facilities.
(c) Question from Councillor Morrell to the Leader of the Council
Car parking at the Hinckley Hub continues to present challenges not only at the Hub itself but in surrounding areas, so much so that it has recently been referred to by members of the public as a pantomime. Does the Leader now regret the hasty move to this site when a more considered approach could have delivered new Council offices and a new leisure centre with all the shared savings on the old Council offices site and surrounding area and at the same time kept Council staff and visitors in the Town centre, giving Castle Street a much needed boost.
Response from the Leader of the Council
I agree with the previous Conservative Leader that the move to the Hub was “a no-brainer”. The speeches at the official opening by Steve Atkinson, a senior civil servant from DWP and a Conservative County Councillor highlighted the huge savings to the public purse.
Locating the new Leisure Centre on the Argents Mead site will ensure its users, estimated to be in excess of 600,000 per year, will be attracted to not only the shops in Castle Street, but the new shopping and leisure facilities in the Crescent scheme.
I have asked for an urgent review of car parking linked to the Hub to be undertaken, and am reassured there are a number of potential options for increasing parking nearby.
Cllr Morrell welcomed the review of car parking, and as a supplementary question asked that a copy of the results be sent to all members. This was agreed.
(d) Question from Councillor Batty to the Leader of the Council
When adopting the Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Study at a meeting of the Executive in October 2013 the Leader of the Council stated that he welcomed this document as it illustrated that the Borough Council had a 5 year supply of pitches and that the Council did not need to accept any more applications. In view of recent conflicting claims that this evidence base may be flawed and in the light of an impending application for a gypsy/traveller caravan site in my ward, can the Leader please confirm whether the statement that the above statement made by him in October still applies?
Response from the Leader of the Council
I take issue over your claim that the evidence base is flawed. As you are well aware, the methodology adopted by this Council has substantially reduced the requirement that was identified both in the Core Strategy and the more recent county wide Gypsy and Traveller Needs Study.
It was interesting that Councillor Batty attended the Executive meeting but never requested to speak on the item.
As a supplementary question, Cllr Batty asked for confirmation on the situation regarding two particular sites. Cllr Bray repeated the commitment that there would be no additional sites included at this stage.
(e) Question from Councillor Batty
Can the Executive member please explain the significance of the long delay in the Council completing its site allocations document in the context of developer appeals and provide an indication of the cost of appeals for the financial years from 2009/10 through to 2014/15, this to include all the Council’s costs and costs awarded against the Council.
Response from the Leader of the Council
The Site Allocations and Development Management document is programmed to be reported to January Scrutiny and January Council prior to consultation on the submission draft to Government for formal examination. There has been extensive work undertaken on reviewing representations from the previous draft document, which you recall attracted over 13,000 representations. Over the last year, there has been dialogue and meetings with local Ward Members in respect of the proposed sites and a cross party Member Working Group has been reviewing the draft Development Management policies that form a key part of the document, a process with which you have been involved.
In addition, you will also be aware that extensive work has had to be undertaken on technical evidence based documents (which are all available on the web site), to underpin the proposed allocations and policies. We know from the experience elsewhere in Leicestershire that, without this work, the Government is rejecting plans and providing a ‘free for all’ for developers to push forward speculative applications for development.
The estimated cost of appeals for the period 2009/10 to 2013/14 is £241,474.00 over the 5 years 2009-2014.
(f) Question from Councillor Ladkin to the Leader of the Council
(i) Bearing in mind the huge amount of publicity given to the Council’s very significant financial commitment to the Bus Station development and its’ determination to deliver the completed scheme in 2015 can the Executive member please advise us on whether this has led to an increased level of interest from potential tenants in the scheme and whether the developer has any firm interest in any of the retail or restaurant units.
(ii) Having waived the £2.75m capital receipt in exchange for a speculative profit share agreement, can the Executive member provide any assurance that the developer now benefitting from this “windfall” will not be approaching existing town centre businesses offering “incentives” to induce them to relocate to the Bus Station development, hence undermining the future viability of Castle Street and the established town centre.
Response from the Leader of the Council
The Crescent regeneration scheme for the bus station site is an exciting new shopping and leisure scheme, which will feature a new cinema (Cineworld) and major new supermarket (Sainsbury’s), which of course the Conservative Group opposed. Tin Hat Regeneration Partnership are in ongoing dialogue with other operators and announcements will be made in due course. These discussions remain commercially confidential.
Decisions for all commercial enterprises are for them to determine. We will not be encouraging the developer to target existing businesses. We can not prevent such businesses from taking their own investment decisions, particularly if the alternative is for the businesses to choose to close and relocate out of the town centre, due to lack of suitable premises.
(g) Question from Councillor Allen to the Leader of the Council
Can the Executive member please confirm when the document “Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Study” dated January 2013 was received by the Council and whether it has been necessary to make any changes from that document prior to it being considered by the full council.
Response from the Leader of the Council
The Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs study was finally completed in April 2013 following the completion of the surveys of potential of existing sites to be accommodated additional pitches.
(h) Question from Councillor Richards to the Leader of the Council
Can the Executive member please explain the logic behind recommending a supplementary budget of £30,600 for parking permits for Hinckley Hub staff when it has requested £25,000 from businesses in the Town Centre Partnership to help provide parking concessions to generate more shopping footfall in the Town centre.
Response from the Leader of the Council
The supplementary budget approval at Executive recently was required under Financial Regulations to account for the long stay parking permits purchased by Leicestershire County Council for their staff on their occupation of the Hub in July 2013. This was not forecast within the 13-14 budget. As of last night, the Council has now secured a contribution of £10,000 from the BID for the next year, subject to a positive ballot for a second term.