Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

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 had in the business on the agenda, and/or indicate that Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applied to them.

Councillor Joshi declared a personal interest in Item 7 ‘Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)’ as he had a family member who was a Council tenant.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 3 March 2011 will be circulated before the meeting and the Board are asked to confirm them as a correct record.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 3 March 2011 were agreed as a correct record.

The Director, Corporate Governance, to report on the receipt of any petitions submitted in accordance with the Council's procedures.

There were no petitions.

The Director, Corporate Governance, to report on the receipt of any questions, representations or statements of case submitted in accordance with the Council's procedures.

There were no questions, representations or statements of case.

The Director, Corporate Governance submits a report that further updates Members on the monitoring of outstanding petitions.  The Board is asked to note the current outstanding petitions.

The Director, Corporate Governance submitted a report that further updated Members on the monitoring of outstanding petitions. 

The Board requested that the petition objecting to the closure of the Thurnby Lodge Housing Office be placed back on the monitoring form in order for the Board to monitor the progress of the recommendations set in January 2011, when officer evidence in relation to the petition was presented to the Board.

Councillor Scuplak asked officers to investigate whether a petition from residents of Colchester Road around road safety improvements had been received.

RESOLVED:

That the progress in relation to the Council’s outstanding petitions be noted.

The Strategic Director –Development, Culture and Regeneration, submits a report that seeks Cabinet approval to adopt an Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) following a consultation period undertaken on a draft document.  The Board is asked to review the document and advise Cabinet of its views on the recommendations.

The Strategic Director – Development, Culture and Regeneration, submitted a report that sought Cabinet approval to adopt an Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) following a consultation period undertaken on a draft document. 

The Head of Planning Policy and Design introduced the report and explained that it provided supplementary guidance to the Core Strategy to aid applicants and developers who were seeking to secure development where an element of affordable housing was required.

Members broadly welcomed the proposals set out in the report, and generally supported the requirement for developers to provide affordable housing. In response to a question regarding how the policy would relate to developments of converted factories, it was confirmed that the policies applied equally to all developments.

In response to a further point about whether affordable housing can be secured in all cases, the Head of Planning Management and Delivery confirmed that, as part of the consideration of an application, an assessment is made of whether the cost of providing affordable housing in a particular scheme would reduce profitability to the point that it was unlikely to proceed.

RESOLVED:

                        That Cabinet be asked to consider the comments made by the Board on the Document.

The Strategic Director – Regeneration and Culture, submits a report that presents Leicester’s Third Local Transport Plan (LTP3) before submission to Full Council on 24^th March 2011. The statute requires LTP3 to be operational on 1^st April 2011.

Due to the large size of the full set of papers, the appendices have been e-mailed to Members and a copy has also been placed in each group room.

Further copies of the appendices are available on the Council’s Web Site at:  http:www.cabinet.Leicester.gov.uk or by phoning Committee Services on 0116 229 8818. 

The Chair agreed to consider the two following items together:

(i)                 Leicester’s Third Local Transport Plan (LTP)

(ii)               Leicester’s Local Transport Plan 2011 to 2026 Capital Programme 2011/12/13

The Team Leader, Transport Strategy introduced both of the above items in the form of a PowerPoint presentation.

Members were informed that the Council had to produce an LTP by law.  This plan aligned with Leicester’s ambitions to become Britain’s first sustainable city.  The previous plan (LTP2) had aided the injection of £50m from Central Government into the local economy.

In terms of passenger flow, it was stated that on a typical day, 240,000 accessed the outer ring road with 120,000 using the inner ring road.  Further to this, 80,000 pedestrians walked passed the Clock Tower each day.  Members heard that 41% of people entered the city by bus, with 36% by car, 21% walked and 1.5% cycled.

With regard to carbon emissions, officers explained that nationally, transportation was responsible for 21% of co2 emissions, and that this figure stood at 17% for Leicester. 

The Team Leader, Transport Strategy explained that there was a strong emphasis on increasing bus travel within both documents in light of the existing congestion problems, and the need to reduce co2 emissions and improve air quality.  It was also pointed out that 30% of residents in Leicester did not have access to a car.  Concerns were expressed by members with regards to the cost of bus travel, and that it was cheaper for families to often access the city centre via car rather than bus.  Officers explained that Park and Ride operators had offered a number of pricing incentives, but it was acknowledged that this would not benefit all bus users.  The Board were also informed that a Quality Bus Partnership had been formed, which looked at strengthening the quality of bus provision in Leicester.  Officers acknowledged that the cost of bus travel was expensive for families, and stated that given the current economic climate, the Council would be reducing the subsidies that it provided to bus companies.

A further point with regard to buses was raised around the reasons for not continuing with a circle bus services which served the outer ring road.  Officers confirmed that such a service had been withdrawn as it was not commercially successful, but acknowledged the frustrations of those who accessed the service previously. 

The Chair questioned why the Council was looking at the possibility of a tram network given the associated costs, and queried why the provision of new roads had not been alternatively proposed.  The Team Leader, Transport Strategy, reported that it would be no cheaper to construct a network of new roads compared to installing a tram network.  The Chair was of the view that other options including lower carbon solutions for buses should be considered.

The Team Leader, Transport Strategy, stated that the key goals of the strategy were to increase economic growth and reduce co2 emissions.  Members generally felt that it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 180.

The Chief Finance Officer submits a report that presents a “corporate” capital programme for 2011/12.  The Board is asked to review the document and advise Cabinet of its views on the recommendations.

The Chief Finance Officer submitted a report that presented a “corporate” capital programme for 2011/12. 

The Head of Financial Control introduced the report and stated that the corporate capital programme is the part that can be spent at the Council’s discretion and was traditionally funded from property sales.  It was made clear that as such sales had fallen as a result of the economic downturn, and that it was expected for the current situation to continue for the next two years. 

Members heard that the total amount funding sources within the programme for 2011/12 was £3.4m, and that projected spend for 2011/12 stood at £2.8m.  This gave a balance of £600,000 available to be spent on additional projects or carried forward to fund the 2012/13 programme.  In comparison to previous programmes, it was made clear that the 2011/12 Corporate Capital Programme was particularly small in the total level of projected spend, and the Head of Financial Control confirmed that in the past, three-year programmes had contained schemes which equated up to £30m and capital receipts at a value of £15m.

Following a query, it was confirmed that the Integrated Transport Package formed part of the Local Transport Plan Capital Programme.  In response to a further query, officers confirmed that the Road Safety Grant was a one-off programme during 2010/11.

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet be asked to consider the comments made by the Board on the Document.

The Director submits a report that asks the Board to consider and approve proposed changes to the Constitution.  The Board is asked to review the document and advise Cabinet of its views on the recommendations.

The Director of Corporate Governance submitted a report that asked the Board to consider and approve proposed changes to the Constitution. 

The Director of Corporate Governance introduced the report and reported that the Council’s constitution was required to be amended to reflect the changes in executive arrangements that would take place once a City Mayor was elected in May 2011.  A schedule that identified each issue subject to change had been prepared, and a proposed amended constitution was available on the Council’s website and in the Political Group rooms.

Members generally welcomed the retention of the title ‘Lord Mayor’ for the conduction of the historic and ceremonial functions attributed to the role.

The Director of Corporate Governance explained that there was some uncertainty around the governance arrangements that the City Mayor would wish to have in place, and that most arrangements would not become clear until that individual commenced office on 9 May 2011.  It was confirmed that the City Mayor would not be a Councillor in law, except in limited circumstances, and would attend Full Council meetings at their own discretion, rather than being required to attend.

In response to a query relating to the political balance of the Standards Sub-Committee, the Director of Corporate Governance confirmed that this Committee was chaired by an independent member, and that the remaining vacancies were issued to Members of the Standards Committee.  It was confirmed that there was no precise formula around which members participated in particular meetings of the sub-committee, but stated that he would be happy to review the current arrangements if they were seen as being problematic. 

It was questioned whether the City Mayor would be permitted to vote during meetings of Full Council.  The Director of Corporate Governance agreed to clarify such procedures.  It was pointed out that the City Mayor would be allowed to present position statements and policy documents to the Council, but that the general role of the City Mayor during Full Council was to be determined by that person in office, and that such arrangements varied amongst those authorities who had already appointed an elected Mayor. 

The succession arrangements for the City Mayor were questioned, and concerns were raised around the Deputy Mayor assuming a position of which they were not directly elected to do. The Director of Corporate Governance stated that such arrangements were presently not clear. 

In response to a further query, it was confirmed that there was no direct provision in place to allow Full Council to appoint or remove Cabinet members, and that this function was performed solely by the City Mayor. 

Following questions seeking clarity around the allowance arrangements of both the City Mayor and Deputy City Mayor, it was confirmed that the Council’s existing Members Allowances Scheme included no provision for such roles, but that a report was to be submitted to Council on 24 March regarding this matter.  The Director of Corporate Governance explained that in the absence of an approved scheme, the allowances could be based  ...  view the full minutes text for item 182.

Councillor Bajaj submits a report that provides the Board with the findings of the Community Cohesion and Safety Task Group’s review into Neighbourhood Watch schemes in Leicester.  The Board is asked to approve the recommendations of the Task Group, and agree to seek a divisional response to the review.

Councillor Bajaj submitted a report that provided the Board with the findings of the Community Cohesion and Safety Task Group’s review into Neighbourhood Watch schemes in Leicester. 

Councillor Bajaj introduced the report and he explained that the Task Group aimed to review the current position of Neighbourhood Watch schemes across Leicester and looked at how such schemes worked in partnership with other agencies. 

The Board was informed that the work was supported by Marion Lewis of Leicestershire and Rutland Neighbourhood Watch and Inspector Bill Knopp.

Councillor Bajaj reported that the Task Group had concluded that Neighbourhood Watch schemes were successful in particular areas, but were not evenly spread across the city and that there were lower levels of the initiative within some communities.  Whilst acknowledging the work that did take place, Councillor Bajaj felt that partner agencies could do more to enable Neighbourhood Watch to become more effective. 

The Task Group report recommended Cabinet to support Neighbourhood Watch in raising its overall profile and encouraged the development of greater collaborative working between the Council and partner organisations.  Furthermore, it was proposed to promote Neighbourhood Watch more widely via Ward Community Meetings.

Members of the Board generally welcomed the work that had been undertaken and the recommendations that were consequently devised.  Councillor Joshi spoke of the positive effects of schemes within his ward since they had been established. 

In response to a question around the justification for seeking further investment in establishing Neighbourhood Watch, it was explained that there were clear benefits in expanding the number of local schemes, and that the Police also desired to develop the work of Neighbourhood Watch. 

RESOLVED:

(1)       That the recommendations of the Community Cohesion and Safety Task Group be supported; and

(2)               That a divisional response to the review be brought back to the Board within three months.

Councillor Newcombe submits a report that provides the Board with the findings of the Regeneration and Transport Task Group’s review into a business plan for repairs to potholes on the City’s roads.  The Board is asked to approve the recommendations of the Task Group, and agree to seek a divisional response to the review.

Councillor Newcombe submitted a report that provided the Board with the findings of the Regeneration and Transport Task Group’s review into a business plan for repairs to potholes on the City’s roads. 

Councillor Newcombe introduced the report and informed Members that a third severe winter running had highlighted the problems of lack of investment in the road infrastructure.  It was made clear that the Council had put extensive resources into dealing with the problem of potholes.  Councillor Newcombe stated that it was recommended to build in some flexibility in the financial regime to allow a carry-forward so that work can be committed to be done when the weather allowed it.

The meeting was also informed that it was intended for the ‘One Clean Leicester’ initiative to improve the reporting process of road and pavement problems. 

It was noted by the Board that the report to the Cabinet Lead Member in March 2010 had identified that a growth bid of £4m annually would be required to arrest the deterioration of Leicester’s roads. 

RESOLVED:

(1)       That the recommendations of the Regeneration and Transport Task Group be supported; and

(2)               That a divisional response to the review be brought back to the Board within three months.

Councillor Newcombe submits a report that provides the Board with the findings of the Regeneration and Transport Task Group’s review into Land Management Companies.  The Board is asked to approve the recommendations of the Task Group, and agree to seek a divisional response to the review.

Councillor Newcombe and Councillor Joshi submitted a joint report that provided the Board with the findings of the Regeneration and Transport and Environment and Sustainability Task Group’s review into the review of air quality in Leicester.

Councillor Newcombe introduced the report and explained that the review was triggered by the fact that the Sustainable Cities index placed Leicester amongst the worst performing UK cities in terms of air quality.  Councillor Newcombe questioned the methodology used within that exercise and asked for the Divisional Response to provide further information in response to the index.  A further parliamentary report also raised concerns about air quality.  Around 250 premature deaths a year could be caused in Leicester by this problem.

The Task Group identified a number of relatively small measures that could be put in place to improve air quality.  Councillors Newcombe and Joshi explained that the main emphasis of the recommendations was that more of a strategic approach to tackling air quality was required.  It was also felt that the Health Scrutiny Committee could look at the matter more closely in relation to the impact on health outcomes. 

Members heard that the review included a site visit to Sheffield City Council to discuss issues involved there and strategies adopted to address them.  It was noted that Sheffield was a Beacon authority in its approach to tackling poor air quality. 

RESOLVED:

(1)       That the recommendations of the Regeneration and Transport Task Group be supported; and

(2)               That a divisional response to the review be brought back to the Board within three months.

Councillors Newcombe and Joshi submit a report that provides the Board with the findings of the Regeneration and Transport and Environment and Sustainability Task Group’s review into air quality in Leicester.  The Board is asked to approve the recommendations of the Task Group, and agree to seek a divisional response to the review.

Councillor Newcombe submitted a joint report that provided the Board with the findings of the Regeneration and Transport review into Land Management Companies (LMSs). 

CouncillorNewcombe reported that this review aimed to attempt to tackle the three-way relationship between residents who paid for common land, the Land Management Company which managed the work and the developer which employed the Land Management Company. 

The recommendations of the review included measures to improve the communications between residents and Land Management Companies.  It was also intended to set out a framework by which developers, residents and LMCs know what to expect from an early stage, the standard of upkeep which can be expected and the costs involved. 

Councillor Newcombe paid thanks to those who had contributed to the review, including the New Hamilton Residents’ Association who were continually informative, helpful and able to provide detailed evidence to a number of hearings. 

It was noted that section 2.3 of the report was to be revised slightly.

RESOLVED:

(1)       That subject to a revision of 2.3, the recommendations of the Regeneration and Transport Task Group be supported; and

(2)               That a divisional response to the review be brought back to the Board within three months.

The meeting closed at 8:30pm.