Agenda and minutes

Councillors will elect a Chair for the meeting

Councillor Russell was elected as Chair for the meeting.

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 case any highways matters came up during the meeting due to the fact that her partner worked in the traffic section of Leicester City Council.  Council Senior also declared a personal interest in the budget application for the cultural quarter because as she owned a property on Charles Street.

The minutes of the Joint Castle and Westcotes Community Meeting held on Wednesday, 18 November 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 18 November 2009 were agreed as a correct record.

Members from their respective wards will be asked to consider the following budget applications:

Castle Community Meeting

Application 1

Applicant:       Residents of the Holy Trinity area

Amount:          £500

Proposal:       Request for rear alley-way gate on Lower Hastings Street

Summary:       Alleyway Gates have already been put up in the area (West Street) and we wish this to continue, particularly in the alleyway between No. 43 and 41 Lower Hastings Street next to a garage.  This alleyway has been used by drug users (needles) and at one time someone was sleeping in the alleyway under some cardboard found near the bins beside the garage. 

Application 2

Applicant:       Residents of the Holy Trinity area

Amount:          To be confirmed

Proposal:       Playground Improvements at Welford Road Recreation Ground

Summary:       The playground situated next to the prison on the park formally known as the Welford Road Recreation Ground is in need of improvement.  The surface has been tampered with, so in places it is not soft.  There is also graffiti and broken glass on several pieces of play equipment including the slide. 

There were three budget applications for consideration at the meeting. These related purely to the Castle Ward budget and only Castle Ward Councillors were able to give their formal view on them.

Application 1 – Request for rear alley-way gate on Lower Hastings Street at a cost of £500.

A resident commented that there was a definite need for these gates as alley ways were being used by drug takers and vagrants, causing anti social behaviour. The Police also supported their installation.

It was noted that all residents affected would need to agree to the installation of the gates.

It was also noted that other areas that wanted alley gates could apply for Community Meeting budget funding for them.

AGREED:

that the application be supported and a sum of £500 be allocated from the Ward Action Plan budget, subject to final approval from the Cabinet Lead for Front Line Service Improvement and Neighbourhoods and the Leader of the Council.

Application 2 – Playground Improvements at the former Welford Road Recreation Ground

Francis Connolly, Member Support Officer informed the meeting that he had spoken with Parks Officers who had informed him that there was funding available from Section 106 monies. (These are where developers provide funding for facilities such as parks, schools or roads as part of planning approvals when they put up developments.) This could be available to fund improvements to the playground area and the recreation ground.

A resident spoke strongly in favour of the improvements, particularly as it would be good for children from the hospital and those visiting people in the prison.

AGREED:

that ideas for designs of improvements and amounts of funding available be brought to the next meeting of the Castle Community Meeting.

Application 3 – Cultural Quarter Christmas Switch On – funding of £2000 requested.

This funding was requested to support the Cultural Quarter Christmas switch on event, to cover the cost of stilt walkers, craft workshops and stage entertainment.

Councillors commented that as there was only £5000 left in the budget, it was felt that £2000 would take too much of it at this time. It was proposed that £500 be given to support the event.

There was some discussion about the merits of Castle ward funding an event which was for people all around the city. It was however noted that there were large number of residents in the St. Georges area and the city centre.

AGREED:

that the application be supported and a sum of £500 be allocated from the Ward Community Fund budget and that this be directed towards craft workshops, subject to final approval from the Cabinet Lead for Front Line Service Improvement and Neighbourhoods and the Leader of the Council.

To discuss issues relating to student accommodation and other housing issues in the area. 

Councillor Russell introduced the next item which was taking together to the two items on the agenda together as one, as there were strongly linked issues. She noted that the De Montfort University Vice Chancellor and Jamie Lewis, local property developer had been invited to the meeting, but were unable to attend. They had however been invited to the next Westcotes Community Meeting.

It was intended to cover the following areas in the discussion:-

-          Rental properties being kept in order.

-          Problems with ‘To Let’ signs.

-          Future student developments – density? how much? appropriateness?

-          Empty properties resulting from student developments.

-          Issues relating to students and green space.

-     Specific developments – DeMontfort University Leisure Centre, supermarket development off Braunstone Gate / New Park Street and a proposed block of student accommodation on Upperton Road.

It was queried how residents were able to find out about planned student developments.

Residents were able to put themselves on a weekly email list from the Planning Section at the Council, where they could be informed of all planning proposals. Residents could make representations on planning applications themselves or their Councillor could do it for them. Signs were also placed in the vicinity of planned developments.

A resident commented that his German friend was horrified at the idea that all student developments were located close to each other, near to a university – this would never happen in Germany. He also felt that the Council was too accepting of developments associated with the University and not enough in favour resident’s point of view.

Councillor Kitterick pointed out that the Council didn’t have the planning rules in place to be able to stop student accommodation developments going ahead or determine where they could be located. When an application on Tudor Road was opposed by the Council, a planning inspector overruled the decision and charged the Council costs awarded to the developer, in the region of £100,000.

Steve Brown, Team Leader in the Planning Section commented that the approach in Leicester had been to locate student accommodation as close as possible to Universities for sustainable reasons and it avoided disruption in residential areas. Current development policies maintained this approach, to avoid using mainstream housing for students. This had been the policy for some time, going back to the 1990s.

A resident raised a concern that Leicester University had cut off a right of way in Lancaster Place.

Councillor Kitterick said that he was aware of the issues and was looking into the matter.

A resident noted that the proposed policy in the Council’s Local Development Framework, on the location of student accommodation talked of integrating the developments with existing local communities. He felt that this hadn’t been achieved. Further it was commented that it wasn’t possible to have cohesion in an area where there were low number of permanent residents.

Councillor Kitterick commented that it was a dilemma with regard to the location of student accommodation. Students needed to stay somewhere, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

A discussion will be held on current domestic burglary rates, prevention and ideas for the future. 

Kelvin Bates, Community Safety Team Leader introduced this item.

-          His role was to ensure that the Council took issues around crime into consideration in everything that the Council did.

-          He also mentioned details about the Safer Leicester Partnership, which involved all key public and voluntary sector agencies in the city who came together to consider crime and the wider issues around it.

-          On burglary he explained that due to a range of efforts, the rate in the city as a whole was down 17% compared to the previous year. It was a 33% reduction for Westcotes and 25% for Castle.

-          One of the methods to reduce burglary was ‘target hardening’, which was where measures such as extra door locks, window locks, kick boards and bars across louver windows were installed. Smart water, a liquid which could only be seen under ultra violet light was also used and could identify which house the item of property came from.

-          Work was also undertaken with offenders, to get them off drugs and to get them into employment or training, this had proven successful in getting prolific offenders out of a life of crime.

A resident enquired how areas were chosen to be target hardened. Kelvin explained that this was based on burglary statistics.

A further query was raised about where smart water could be obtained. It  was indicated that this was available at either Hinckley Road Local Police Unit or at Mansfield House in the city centre.

A comment was made that speed bumps were useful in stopping burglaries. Police representatives felt that this wasn’t the case.

To report back on recent initiatives and to discuss future options.

Due to lengthy discussions on planning / housing issues, this item was not considered, however residents were invited to put their names down to receive further information about waste and recycling schemes in the area.

The meeting closed at 9.10pm.