Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Senior.

Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business to be discussed.

Councillor Thomas declared that in respect of Item 9. General Fund Budget 2016/17, his wife had a personal budget from the Leicester City Council.

Councillor Patel declared that in respect of Item 9, General Fund Budget 2016/17 her mother was in receipt of an Adult Social Care package.

In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct, these interests were not considered so significant that they were likely to prejudice the respective Councillors’ judgement of the public interest.  They were not, therefore, required to withdraw from the meeting.

The Chair made no announcements.

The minutes of the meeting of the Overview Select Committee held on 3 December 2015 have been circulated and the Committee will be asked to confirm them as a correct record.

AGREED:

that the minutes of the previous meeting of the Overview Select Committee held on 3 December 2015 be confirmed as a correct record.

Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service – Integrated Risk Management Plan

The Chair referred to the Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service’s proposals to close the Central Fire Station along with other spending cuts,  as had been discussed at meetings of the Overview Select Committee in October and December 2015. He was very pleased that it had been announced that these proposals had now been withdrawn.

The City Mayor expressed his gratitude to Members for their input into the discussions and was also grateful to the council’s Chief Finance Officer and the Head of Finance for the advice they had given to the Fire Authority. He had been concerned that the proposals for the cuts were not entirely necessary or safe and a considerable number of representations had been received expressing concerns relating to the provision of fire cover in the city centre from the periphery.  The Fire Authority had now recognised that there were alternatives to the original proposals and the City Mayor commented that Councillor Willmott had been instrumental in this. In addition the settlement to the Fire Authority had been better than anticipated. The new proposal would no longer require the closure of the central fire station or compulsory redundancies. Instead, they would be looking at the administration of buildings, the fleet and other vehicles and the management structure.  The City Mayor thanked colleagues, the Fire Brigade Union and retired fire fighters for their help in this matter.

The City Mayor was questioned as to whether there would be a review into how the process for budget setting within the Fire Authority was managed. The City Mayor responded that no changes were planned; the proposals came from the Chief Fire Officer and were put out to consultation, from which good feedback was received.

Councillor Willmott commented that he was aware there had been a press release on the council’s website with a link to the new proposals but asked the City Mayor if he could highlight how they changed from the originals. The City Mayor responded that they focussed primarily on buildings, fleet and management and he would forward those details onto Councillor Willmott .

The City Mayor was asked whether in light of the new proposals there would be a further consultation and he responded that advice had been taken on this and no further consultation would be necessary.

A member expressed a hope that there would be no compulsory redundancies and the City Mayor responded that the expectation was that for the foreseeable future there would be no compulsory redundancies though that did not exclude the possibility of opportunities for voluntary redundancies. 

The Monitoring Officer to report on any questions, representations or statements of case received.   

There were no questions, representations or statements of case.

The Monitoring Officer to report on any petitions received.

There were no petitions.

The Monitoring Officer submits a report that updates Members on the monitoring of outstanding petitions. The Committee is asked to note the current outstanding petitions and agree to remove those petitions marked ‘Petitions Process Complete’ from the report.

The committee considered the Tracking of Petitions Monitoring Report together with an update on the Petitions Monitoring Report circulated at the meeting (and attached at the back of these minutes). It was noted that there were a considerable number of petitions at the ‘amber’ stage which meant that they were progressing within three months of being referred to the relevant divisional director.   The Vice Chair explained that approximately two thirds of the petitions at ‘amber’ related to one area of the council and many of those related to highways, parking and traffic issues, where there were no quick solutions. Issues such as parking for example, were quite significant across the council and timescales in dealing with such issues were restricted by the legal process. Officers were also dealing with many such issues that arose that were outside of the petition process.

Councillor Chaplin referred to a petition 17/12/2015 from Asif Patel relating to the Stoneygate Ward and expressed concerns as to whether the ward councillors were aware of this.  The Democratic Support Officer responded that the usual procedure was to copy in the ward councillors when a response was sent to the lead petitioner and he would look into this. Councillor Chaplin also asked officers to note that the petition was included twice on the tracking report.

Councillor Thomas asked for the status of the petition referenced 27/08/2015 requesting a one way system in Doncaster Road. The Democratic Support Officer explained that this was part of wider proposals relating to the Belgrave Road consultation which was still ongoing. The City Mayor commented that if this was something that would be returned to, in the strategic sense, as part of a bigger issue, then it should be removed from the petition tracking report and the lead petitioner needed to be informed. He added that he would look into this.

Councillor Patel referred to petition referenced 29 /10/2015 requesting CCTV cameras in Rushey Fields Park and at the junction of Gipsy Lane and Harrison Road and expressed concerns that the information on the report did not reflect the most up to date position.  The Democratic Support Officer responded that he would refer this back to the lead officer who was dealing with the petition.

Councillor Porter referred to petition referenced 18/11/2015 relating to bus lane and bus lane restrictions on Lutterworth Road and Aylestone Road and expressed concerns that he had not been consulted on the proposed response to the lead petitioner. The Democratic Support Officer responded that he would look into this.

AGREED:

1)    that the Democratic Support Officer refer to the relevant lead officers the queries raised relating to petitions referenced 17/12/2015, 27/08/2015, 29/10/2015 and 18/11/2015; and

2)    that those petitions referenced 14/08/2015, 10/09/2015, 11/11/2015, 6/10/2015-1, 6/10/2015-2, 6/10/2015-3, 6/10/2015-4, 6/10/2015 -5, 28/09/2015 and 06/01/2016 marked Petition Process Complete be removed from the report.

The Director of Finance submits a report that which details the City Mayor’s proposed budget for 2016/17. Members are asked to consider and comment on the report prior to its submission to Council on 24 February 2016.

The Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Commission and the Adult Social Care Scrutiny Commission met on 14 January 2016 to consider the Budget 2016/17. A draft minute extract from this meeting is now attached.

Members were asked to consider and comment on the General Fund Revenue Budget 2016/17. The City Mayor introduced the budget and commented that members would be aware of the contents of the budget and the implications of the reduction in the government grant to local authorities. The situation was severe as five years of budget reductions had resulted in the council’s grant from central government fall by £86m per year. Because of this, the spending reviews were necessary and they required a great deal of consideration, sensitivity, consultation and amendment throughout the year. Leicester, along with some other urban authorities had suffered disproportionate cuts. Spending reviews so far had enabled the council to undertake a managed reserves policy, some of which had been used to ‘cushion’ some of those reductions. The reserves however were coming to an end and they would run out next year; therefore it was necessary to continue with the programme of spending reviews.

The Director of Finance explained that there was a targeted spending review programme to make savings of £45m per year and from this, savings of £15m per year had been approved. The social care precept would allow the council to increase council tax by 2% to be used for Adult Social Care services,; however this would not meet the pressures arising from the increase in the national minimum wage.

The Chair praised the council’s budget strategy which he said had proved its effectiveness. He then invited comments from Members.

Councillor Cleaver praised the way the council had managed its reserves which helped now to balance the budget; but questioned whether a budget that wasn’t balanced would be an illegal budget. The Director of Finance responded that she was the council’s Section 151 Officer and by law she had to ensure that the council set a balanced budget and that there was nothing unlawful within that budget.

Councillor Dr Moore queried the provision for inflation from 2017/19 to 2019/20 and the Director of Finance explained that they needed to include a figure for inflation. They used an inflation forecast from the council’s advisors and these forecasts would be revised during the year.

Councillor Patel queried a provision of £0.2m and a contingency figure of £3m in relation to the budget and equalities.  She was aware of families, with adults or children with disabilities, who were finding it very difficult to get adaptations made to their house. Concerns were expressed that decisions made in Adult Social Care or Children’s services impacted on the quality of life.  The Director of Finance explained that the figure of £0.2m would allow for the council to consider the equality impact implications around the decisions that were made and not for people to bid for the money for projects. The budget was a high risk budget and had been for some years; the £3m contingency would help to manage the risk around difficult proposals. For 2015/16 the entire contingency sum would be required to fund the pressures in Adult  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

The Director of Finance submits a report which will ask the Council to approve a capital programme for 2016/17 to 2018/19.  Members are asked to consider and comment on the report prior to its submission to Council on 24 February 2016.

Members were asked to consider and comment on the Capital Programme 2016/17 to 2018/19 prior to its submission to Council on 24 February 2016.

The City Mayor introduced the report and explained that the programme related to investment in land and buildings for a variety of purposes that formed an essential part of what the council did and where there was a need to provide continual investment. The programme included highways, pavements and schools and also included investment in flooding where Leicester had historically experienced major problems with flooding.  The capital programme included a very substantial investment in homes and housing across the city.

The Chair added that this was a three year programme and he invited comments from Members.

Councillor Porter referred to the Repayable Home Repair Grant and questioned whether this was for adaptations to people’s homes and if so whether it could be increased as the report stated that the fund would assist 60 people.  The City Mayor confirmed that the fund was for adaptations, but it was a new element and would top up what was a revolving fund. The Director of Finance offered to write to Councillor Porter with the current position.

Councillor Porter queried an amount of £65k to install around 30 defibrillators in Leicester parks, as he had been advised that they were cheaper from the British Heart Foundation. He also queried whether parks were the best places to install the equipment. The Deputy City Mayor responded that it would have been helpful if the information in the report explained that the money was not just about the purchase and installation of the defibrillators as this was just one half of the project. People would also be trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and how to use the equipment. There were already some defibrillators in parks and other public places and this would complete coverage across the city. The Deputy City Mayor added that this was part of the Labour Party manifesto set out at the previous election.

Councillor Chaplin remarked that she welcomed the enhancements to the Liquid Logic software and questioned whether this would result in a better system. The Director of Finance responded that Liquid Logic was a powerful tool with considerable potential. They had been advised that an upgrade was essential and there were reservations about this, but a vigorous process would be undertaken before any commitment was made.  It was requested and agreed that Members would be offered a demonstration of Liquid Logic including a ‘hands on’ interactive session, with also the possibility of sessions on the Members’ portal.

Councillor Grant commented that funding for school places was the largest area of the programme and he questioned whether there was flexibility to bring the capital spend forward if required. The City Mayor responded that this was included in the Capital Programme as policy provision and statistics demonstrated that there would be a need for some of those additional school places imminently and he was due to receive a report  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

The Strategic Director for City Development and Neighbourhoods submits a report that provides an overview of the rationale and process for the proposed procurement for construction related services. The Committee is recommended to note the contents of the report and the proposed approach being outlined for the procurement of these services.

The Strategic Director for City Development and Neighbourhoods submitted a report which provided an overview of the rationale and process for the proposed procurement for construction related services.  The committee also received a presentation which is attached at the back of these minutes.

The committee considered the report and presentation and comments and questions from Members were invited.

Councillor Porter asked as to what might be an acceptable bid from companies tendering for the work. The City Mayor responded that the council would invite competitive tendering for the work but it would not be commercially sensible to make public details as to what might be an acceptable bid.

Members commented that there was a need to ensure that the council would not be at risk and the Director explained that there would be a robust process for managing the contract and they would consider the track record of the companies that tendered for the work. It was acknowledged that there were breakout clauses, but a query was raised as to what would happen if problems arose. The Director explained that there would be a clear performance framework, and if necessary the council would be able to go outside that framework. Clearly however the council would be seeking to award the contract to a company which would not give problems.

Members praised the initiative; with views expressed that it would drive down costs, attract large organisations, create jobs and apprenticeships. Views were also expressed that it would lead to better quality designs.

In answer to a query as to whether the council would have to guarantee any level of work, the Director explained that the council would not have to make such guarantees.

The Director was asked whether there would be any requirements for the successful bidder to involve small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). He explained that the contractors would be asked for their response to this and a contractor who could assure a higher level of use of local SMEs would score more points in the tendering process.

AGREED:

that the report and presentation on Procurement of Construction Related Professional Services be noted.

The City Mayor will answer questions raised by members of the Overview Select Committee on issues not covered elsewhere on the agenda.

The Chair invited Members to raise questions with the City Mayor

Highways and Pavement Intervention Levels

Councillor Newcombe reported that at an earlier meeting he had asked whether highways and pavement intervention levels in the outer areas of the city could be brought in line with the city centre levels. He did not appear however to have received a response.

The City Mayor asked Councillor Newcombe in future to chase up a response to his query if it was not forthcoming. He acknowledged Councillor concern as he was aware that in some suburban areas, the footfall was similar to that in areas of the city centre. He would make sure a response was sent.

Trees in Knighton and questions raised at Council

Councillor Grant stated that he was unable to attend the recent meeting of Full Council and asked for written responses to the three questions he had submitted to be sent to him.

One of the questions he had submitted was relating to missing trees in Knighton. Had he been at Council, his supplementary question would have been to request that all the missing trees were replaced prior to putting up the proposed street banners on lampposts. 

The City Mayor responded that he had held discussions regarding the replacement of street trees and had looked to see if there was a deficit in Knighton. In general he believed that trees made an important contribution towards enhancing the street scene and that they should be replaced on a one to one basis, although not necessarily in the same place as sometimes the original location was not the most appropriate.

Greville Janner

Councillor Porter asked why at a recent meeting of Full Council, the City Mayor referred to the ‘alleged’ victims of Greville Janner and whether the City Mayor believed them. He also asked whether the City Mayor had been aware of the activities that had been spoken about.

The City Mayor responded that it was an established convention that when allegations were made against someone, no matter how serious or credible, the description of allegation was used, and he had responded in a way that took the suffering very seriously. He had been aware of the allegations against Frank Beck and had been surprised that these were not investigated further, but he had not been in a position to know any more than any other member of the public.

Schools and traffic / parking issues

Councillor Barton raised concerns relating to traffic and parking issues around schools and stated that in particular she had received numerous complaints of problems on Glenfield Road and Letchworth Road since part of Christ the King Primary School had been relocated.

The City Mayor responded that he was aware of the problems which were being experienced across the city. Discussions had been held with officers and they had been asked to look to see what actions were being taken in other cities. As children grew up and became parents themselves, there was a continuing effort  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

The Committee will invite updates in relation to the Scrutiny Commission’s work programmes.

Members were invited to update the committee on their Scrutiny Commission’s work programme. Councillor Barton explained that the Heritage, Culture, Leisure and Sport Scrutiny Commission would be looking at a new review to capture the economic performance indicators of Leicester’s Heritage and Culture Venues.

A work programme for the Overview Select Committee is attached.  The Committee is asked to consider this and make comments and/or amendments as it considers necessary.

Members were invited to consider and comment on the Overview Select Work Programme. Councillor Chaplin asked that the briefing on Liquid Logic be added to the Commission’s work programme.

Councillor Chaplin also asked whether there could be a briefing on the capital programme relating to school places. The City Mayor suggested that it would be appropriate for a report to be sent to the Children, Young People and Schools’ Scrutiny Commission.

Members are asked to consider and comment on the Corporate Plan of Key Decisions.

Members noted the Corporate Plan of Key Decisions.

The meeting closed at 8.25 pm.