Agenda and minutes

Councillors will elect a Chair for the meeting

Councillor Kitterick was elected as Chair for the meeting.

Councillor Kitterick welcomed all present to the meeting and the Councillors introduced themselves.

The first main item on the programme is Declarations of Interest, where Councillors have to say if there is anything in the programme they have a personal interest in.  For example, if a meeting was due to discuss a budget application put forward by a community group and one of the Councillors was a member of that group, they would not be able to take part in the decision on that budget application

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 Senior declared a personal interest in agenda item 6, “Westcotes Residents Parking Scheme” in that her partner worked in the traffic section of Leicester City Council.  Council Senior also declared a personal interest in agenda item 5, “Housing Issues”, in that she rented out properties in the City centre.

Councillors Connelly and Russell each declared a personal interest in agenda item 6, “Westcotes Residents Parking Scheme”, in that they lived in the area that could be affected by a parking scheme.

The minutes of the Joint Castle and Westcotes Community Meeting held on Wednesday, 4 March 2009 are attached and Members are asked to confirm them as a correct record.

The minutes of the Joint Castle and Westcotes Community Meeting held on 4 March 2009 were agreed as a correct record.

As a large number of people had attended the meeting for item 6, “Westcotes Residents Parking Scheme”, it was agreed that this item would be taken before the other remaining items on the agenda.

Andy Thomas, Traffic Manager (Head of City Development), will give an update on the Westcotes Residents Parking Scheme

Andy Thomas, the City Council’s Head of City Development, explained that the Council had received feedback from a substantial number of residents in the Westcotes Ward that they were unable to park outside of their own homes.  To try to respond to this, the Council was undertaking consultation with the residents of the Ward on whether they would like a residents’ parking scheme introduced.  Mr Thomas then gave a presentation, showing some of the parking problems encountered in the Ward, a copy of which is attached at the end of these minutes for information.

Mr Thomas explained that the Council wanted to offer increased parking capacity to shops in the area, particularly during the current economic recession.  It therefore was not proposed that the current capacity on Narborough Road would be reduced, as parking there already was limited.  However, day-time commuter parking in the side streets was causing problems for people trying to find places to park, so it was hoped that commuters could be encouraged to park further out of the City, for example at the new Park and Ride facility in Enderby.

Mr Thomas stressed that the current consultation was on an idea of how parking problems could be alleviated, as formal proposals had not been drawn up yet.  However, any final scheme would give priority to residents to park in the area and ensure that appropriate parking capacity was provided for people using the shops in the area.  There was a view amongst some people that the same parking restrictions should apply across the whole City, but this would not be appropriate to Westcotes, which had a unique mix of shops, residents, businesses, religious and other institutions and organisations. 

As no formal proposal for any scheme, or schemes currently existed, when the consultation exercise was complete, the results would be examined to see if residents supported a parking scheme and, if they did, whether it was favoured for the whole Ward, or just part of it. 

One way of testing any scheme introduced could be through using an experimental Traffic Regulation Order (TRO).  Although an experimental TRO previously had not been used for a residents’ parking scheme, there was no reason in law why this could not be done.  It would be valid for up to 18 months, which was the maximum period allowed for an experimental Order, and would then have to be either confirmed or cancelled.  It was thought that, if an experimental TRO was to be used, it could be ready to start in the later part of 2010.

An experimental TRO could be cancelled or confirmed any time during its operation, but the Council expected that it would run for the full 18 months.  If it was cancelled, the parking situation would return to how it had been before the TRO was introduced.  As an experimental TRO, it could be amended during its first 6 months of operation, so different initiatives could be tested if needed. 

In reply to questions from people present  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The meeting adjourned at 8.34 pm and reconvened at 8.47 pm

Councillor Russell in the Chair

The meeting will discuss housing issues in the area.  Representatives of letting agents, private student landlords, DeMontfort University Students Union and the City Council have been invited to attend the meeting.

Councillor Russell reminded those present that a wide range of issues had been considered at the last Joint Castle and Westcotes Community Meeting, one of which had been the upkeep of properties owned by landlords.  Some properties had been kept well, but others had not and, in respect of the latter, it could be difficult to make contact with the landlords.  As such, the Council wanted to know what problems were being encountered in relation to this, so that the Council could work with landlords to find suitable solutions to problems identified.

One resident reported that it appeared that, in Hazel Street, when a house became vacant, students were moved in, but always keeping the number below 4, so that a licence for a house in multiple occupation was not needed.  The effect was that the area had degenerated and was a “ghost town” in the summer.

Rental properties often were repaired in the cheapest way possible and this work often looked very cheap.  The quality of repairs also could affect who bought a property when it was sold on, as work done often was not appropriate to families, (for example if front gardens had been concreted over).  This led to areas slowly decaying.

The Council was commended for its work on clearing rubbish and the City Wardens were congratulated on the work they did to keep areas in good condition, but landlords did not appear to have the same interest in maintaining good standards in the area.  For example, they had been known to leave mattresses and sofas at the front of properties.

One example of the problems experienced was that wheeled refuse bins often were left out on the street and the City Wardens did not have the resources to deal with all of the problems being encountered.  It was suggested that one reason for this could be that landlords cleared out literature from properties, so students were not aware that they should be taking bins off the pavement.  The meeting felt that landlords appeared to be getting away with creating this sort of situation, but should be held responsible for ensuring that their tenants were informed of the requirements.

Councillor Russell advised the meeting that one thing the Council wanted to introduce for the next academic year was a requirement for landlords and letting agents to display a sign in each property telling tenants the basic levels of behaviour expected of them, (for example, that wheeled rubbish bins should not be left on the street and what items could be put in the green recycling boxes).

The following points also were made during discussion on this:-

§               Residents felt like they did not matter to the Council, as students always appeared to be put first.  In other parts of the country there were some good examples of how local authorities, universities and residents had worked together to overcome similar situations;

§               Legislation on the number of people who could share a property before a licence was needed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Councillor Kitterick in the Chair

Castle Ward Community Budget

Three applications for funding from the Castle Ward Community Budget were tabled for consideration.  It was agreed that these should be considered as urgent business, as the funding was required before the next Castle Community Meeting.  However, the meeting had to be closed before these bids could be considered, (see minute 10, “Close of Meeting”, below).

Post-meeting note:

Immediately following the meeting, the Ward Members indicated that they recommended that the following grants should be supported and reported to the next Castle Community Meeting:-

a)            Queens Road Traders Association

Queens’ Road Christmas Lighting – £3,442 from the Ward Action Plan Budget

b)            Shama Women’s Centre

            Upgrading of Alarm System – £950 from the Ward Community Fund

c)            Shama Women’s Centre

            Repairs to, and refurbishment of, three shower areas – £875

Some residents present at the meeting raised objections to the demolition of the Bowstring Bridge in Westcotes Ward, asserting that this Bridge was part of the area’s history and heritage, but had been demolished without any consultation with local residents.

The Chair called for order in the meeting, but as this could not be restored, the Chair declared the meeting closed at 9.31 pm.