Agenda and minutes

Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business on the agenda, and/or indicate that Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applies to them.

Members were asked to declare any interests they may have in the business on the agenda, and/or indicate that Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applied to them.

There were no declarations.

There were no apologies for absence.

The minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee held on 23 November 2006 have been circulated and the Committee is asked to agree them as a correct record.

Councillor Porter commented that his views weren’t represented correctly in the minutes with regard to Minute 67, Old Town Development Partnership - Progress Update and Acquisitions of Long Leaseholds. The Committee Administrator undertook to agree a suitable set of words which adequately reflected Councillor Porter’s comments.

RESOLVED:

that the minutes of the Economic Development and Planning Scrutiny Committee held on 23 November 2006 having been circulated to the Committee be confirmed as a correct record subject to the above amendment.

The Town Clerk to report on the receipt of any petitions submitted in accordance with the Council’s procedures.

The Town Clerk reported that there were no petitions.

The Town Clerk reported that there were no questions / representations or statements of case.

The Service Director, Regeneration, Highways and Transportation submits a report summarising the 3 cities collaborative work to date and lists some of the benefits for Leicester. The report also reports on the New Growth Points initiative. The Committee is asked to note the briefing.

The Corporate Director of Regeneration and Culture submits a report on the preparation of the Council’s second Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring report. The Committee is asked to comment on the report and the key findings of the Annual Monitoring Report.

The Draft Leicester City CouncilLDF Annual Monitoring Report 2005/2006 document is attached for members of the Committee only. Copies of this document are available either from the Council’s website at www.cabinet.leicester.gov.uk or by phoning Matthew Reeves on (0116) 252 6022.

The Corporate Director of Regeneration and Culture submitted a report on the preparation of the Council’s second Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring report.

Members of the Committee welcomed the report.

A Committee Member asked questions regarding the schedule for outstanding Supplementary Planning Documents, action being taken to increase the amount of industrial development on brownfield land and the location of the development which provided less than 30 houses per hectare, the Government minimum standard. Officers in response stated that it was due to the lack of staff resources that the timetable for the production of two Supplementary Planning Documents had slipped from January to April. Officers expected that more employment development would be taking place on brownfield land in future and less employment development would take up greenfield land. The site built at less than 30 houses per hectare was at Gilmorton Avenue, Aylestone.

Members of the Committee expressed further concerns about the delay in the production of the Supplementary Planning Documents for regeneration areas. Officers commented that they had re-negotiated the current timetable with the Government Office for the East Midlands but didn’t expect that this could be done in future.

RESOLVED:

that the report be noted.

The Service Director, Planning and Policy submits a report informing the Committee of the formal public consultation period on the draft review of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS8) for the East Midlands. The Committee is asked to consider the Regional Plan policy implications set out in the report and comment on the proposed responses.

The Service Director (Environmental Services) submitted a report, which required Members to determine whether or not to revoke a Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licence.

The appellant was present at the meeting and was accompanied by a representative.

The Team Manager (Licensing) outlined the details of the report, including the relevant City Council Policy Guidelines and drew Members attention to the details of the prohibition notice that was served

The appellant and the representative explained the situation concerning the serving of the prohibition notice and answered questions from Members.

The Sub-Committee received legal advice from the Solicitor to the Sub-Committee in the presence of the appellant and the representative.

The Solicitor to the Sub Committee, Team Manager (Licensing), appellant and the representative then withdrew from the meeting.

The Sub-Committee, having regard to the guidelines adopted on 1 April 2002 and Section 60 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, gave the application full and detailed consideration.

The Solicitor to the Sub Committee, Team Manager (Licensing), appellant and the representative then returned to the meeting.

RESOLVED:

that the Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licence for the vehicle  owned by the appellant not be

The Service Director, Planning and Policy submits a report outlining proposed revisions to the Council’s Local Development Scheme and to propose a date for adoption of the Revised Local Development Scheme. The Committee is asked to note and comment on the report.

The Service Director Planning and Policy submitted a report outlining revisions to the Council’s Local Development Scheme and proposing a date for adoption of the Revised Local Development Scheme.

Members of the Committee noted that the report at page 19 indicated that the Supplementary Planning Documents relating to Abbey Meadows and Tall Buildings would be adopted later than the document indicated. It was queried whether the fact that these documents would be adopted later would hinder the regeneration of the city as they would indicate to the development community what forms of development were suitable for the city. The Service Director, Planning and Policy commented that the detail of the guidance could be used to guide development prior to its adoption.

A member of the committee suggested that the Residential Design Guide could be delayed to enable the Abbey Meadows and Tall Buildings documents to be brought forward. Officers commented that the Residential Design Guide would enable efficiencies and faster decision making to take place in Development Control.

A Committee member queried whether it would assist the cities regeneration if regeneration was made a corporate priority. The Service Director, Planning and Policy stated that regeneration was part of the overall priority of making the city more attractive. He did however note that there were different areas competing for resources but it would make a difference if more resources were available for regeneration.

A Committee Member raised a further point that the production of Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) should reflect the priorities of the residents of the city and Councillors. In particular it was felt disappointing that an SPD had not been brought forward on community safety. Officers agreed to look into this particular issue.

Members then considered issues relating to the production of the planning documents and the frequency with which they needed to be reviewed. It was felt that the work that needed to be achieved would be challenging. It was queried what resources it would require for the performance in this area to be amongst the best in the country. The Service Director, Planning and Policy commented that managing performance was important and he would look into what would be required to improve performance and report back to the Committee.

RESOLVED:

(1)that the Committee receive a report which considers resources that would be required to improve performance in the production of Supplementary Planning Documents;

(2)that the Cabinet be requested to consider providing more resources to enable performance to improve in the production of Supplementary Planning Documents;

(3)that the Cabinet and each political party be requested to consider making regeneration a corporate priority;

(4)that the Committee recommends that Supplementary Planning Documents in future, reflect the priorities of the citizens of Leicester and Councillors.

(3)that the Cabinet and each political party be requested to consider making regeneration a corporate priority;

(4)that the Committee recommends that Supplementary Planning Documents in future, reflect the priorities of the citizens of Leicester and Councillors.

The Service Director, Regeneration, Highways and Transportation submits a report providing an update on performance of the city economy against priorities of the Strategy for Leicester and the Local Area Agreement. The Committee is asked to note the current performance against the indicators contained within the Local Area Agreement.

The Service Director Regeneration, Highways and Transportation submitted a report providing an update on performance of the city economy against priorities of the Strategy for Leicester and the Local Area Agreement.

A member of the Committee raised a number of queries about the data which supports the management of performance and its availability. Officers explained that they were expecting a joint data system to be in operation by the end of January which would be accessible by the Council and its partner agencies. It was also noted that performance would be reported to the Committee quarterly. Officers also undertook to see if Councillors could access this data on an up to date basis online.

A Committee Member queried what the Council’s progress was with regard to meeting the aims of the Job Service Partnership. He also commented that there was a lack of joint up working between the aims of the physical regeneration agencies and those in the labour market regeneration. The Service Director, Regeneration, Highways and Transportation commented he that he felt the Council was now making good progress with delivering the Job Interview Guarantee Scheme part of the Job Service Partnership. He also felt that there were examples of the physical and labour market regeneration working together such as the protocol agreed with Hammersons and John Lewis to develop local labour in the new Highcross Quarter development. The Head of Regeneration Programmes also commented that national ‘seedcorn’ funding was available to for agencies such as Connexions and the Department for Work and Pensions to build closer links with private sector employers.

A further query was raised about the possibility of developing a WiFi system for the whole of the city to develop knowledge working capacity within the city. The Service Director, Regeneration, Highways and Transportation said that he would report back to the Committee on the possibility of this.

Committee Members also expressed concern about the performance of the Council’s partner agencies and whether the Committee could scrutinise this performance. They felt that they would want to invite partner agencies whose performance was poor to future meetings.

RESOLVED:

(1)that partner agencies whose performance is poor be invited to future meetings to discuss how performance could be improved; and

(2)that officers consider ways of allowing Councillors access to up to date performance information.

The Service Director, Regeneration, Highways and Transportation submits a report informing the Committee of the results of a recent city centre survey. The Committee is asked to note the report.

The Service Director, Regeneration, Highways and Transportation submitted a report informing the Committee of the results of a recent city centre survey.

One Member of the Committee expressed particular concerns that there was no area committee covering the city centre. He noted from his experience of organising meetings in the city centre that there was certainly a demand for such a meeting. Officers commented that the advice they had received from the Cabinet Lead on this matter was to not have a city centre area committee at the current time. Officers agreed to obtain more details with regard to the decision to follow this course.

A Committee Member also noted that the result showed that residents felt the priority areas for action were Belgrave Gate, Humberstone Gate, St Matthews and Highfields. Yet he felt that there was no strategy to improve these areas. He felt that there was a particular need to link the city to St Matthews and to improve the relationship of the railway station to the city and to Highfields. Officers noted that priority areas were discussed at the previous meeting on the City Centre Improvements report where the Committee requested to develop investment to Belgrave Gate. The difficulties with developing links to St Matthews were also noted at that meeting. There where plan to develop each of these areas when the finances were available. Another member of the Committee commented further of the importance of improving Granby Street.

One committee member made comments regarding the improving levels of footfall in the city centre, which were up 17% in the past year. It was also noted that Nottingham had faced similar problems to Leicester with regard to the improvements of their Market Square.

RESOLVED:

(1)that proposals to establish links between the city centre and St Matthews / Highfields be developed;

(2)that Officers seek further details from the administration with regard to the development of a city centre area committee / city centre forum;

(3)that consideration be given to improving the area around the railway station.

The Service Director, Regeneration, Highways and Transportation submits a report informing the Committee about progress of Leicester’s SRB programme, for consideration prior to the preparation of the 2007/8 SRB Delivery Plan. The Committee is asked to comment on the progress of Leicester’s SRB programme to date.

The Service Director, Regeneration, Highways and Transportation submitted a report informing the Committee about the progress of Leicester’s SRB programme, for consideration prior to the preparation of the 2007/08 SRB Delivery Plan.

Members of the Committee enquired whether the underspend detailed in the report would be spent by the end of the programme. Officers commented that this would be the case.

RESOLVED:

that the report be noted.

The Service Director, Regeneration, Highways and Transportation submits a report providing the Committee with an overview of the main proposals contained within the white paper that relate to the business of the committee and to identify any implications for Leicester.

The Service Director, Regeneration, Highways and Transportation submitted a report providing the Committee with an overview of the main proposals contained within the Local Government White Paper that related to the business of the committee and identifying implications for Leicester.

A member of the Committee queried whether the White Paper would actually deliver benefits for the city. Officers commented that the key issue to delivering regeneration was the level of governance at which it was delivered. Certain issues made sense on a neighbourhood basis, other issues needed a county-wide approach.

Members of the Committee felt that it was disappointing that the White Paper didn’t consider the issue of changing the boundaries of governance of local authorities. It was also felt disappointing that the White Paper didn’t go into detail about the level at which particular services should be delivered. Officers commented that the White Paper wasn’t detailed in this area. It was however noted that there was the ‘call to co-operate’ aspect which called on relevant partner agencies to work together to address a particular issue. It was noted that there was no definition of ‘partners’ which meant that a wide interpretation of this aspect of the White Paper could be considered. It was also noted by one Member of the Committee that discussions they had with Ministers prior to the White Papers publication had indicated that it was never likely to consider this area. Members of the Committee felt that ways in which local authorities in the county could work together in a closer way.

RESOLVED:

that the Cabinet be requested to look into ways in which a greater Leicester partnership could be delivered to improve closer working with neighbouring authorities.

The Chief Executive submits a report seeking comments from the Committee on the ongoing Municipal year work programme.

The Chief Executive submitted a report seeking comments from the Committee on the ongoing municipal year work programme.

The Chair commented that consideration should be given to removing items from the work programme. Other members of the Committee felt that it was unlikely that all the reports in the work programme would come forward and therefore the committee could wait and see what happened.

RESOLVED:

that the report be noted.

The meeting closed at 7.15pm.