Agenda item

3:45pm – 5:15pm

 

The Chief Finance Officer submits a report that seeks views of the Scrutiny Committee on the draft budget plans, for the following divisions:-

 

-          Cultural Services (C1 - Green)

-          Environmental Services (C2 - Yellow)                                                            

           

The Board is asked to consider the draft budget proposals and make its comments to the Cabinet.

With the agreement of the Committee, the divisional budget pertinent to the Environment and Sustainability Task Group Leader (Appendix C2) was considered before that pertinent to the culture and Leisure Task Group Leader (Appendix C1).

 

a)     Environmental Services

 

At the invitation of the Board, Councillor Russell, the Lead Member for Environment and Sustainability addressed the meeting, explaining that, wherever possible, innovative ways had been sought by which Environmental Services could be protected and service levels maintained.

 

The Board expressed concerns about the proposal to reduce park and play locking services, (proposal number ES20).  It was suggested that not locking some of the City’s parks or play areas would lead to anti-social behaviour in their vicinity and Members were reminded that a verbal assurance previously had been given that consideration would be given to which parks and play areas should still be locked.

 

In reply, the Director of Environmental Services confirmed that it had not been decided yet which parks and play areas would continue to be locked, but the history of each site would be considered before a decision was made.  The Director further confirmed that consideration was being given to alternative ways of providing this service, such as outsourcing the service, the provision of automatic bollards at entrances, or using existing staff resources.  It was recognised that there would be costs associated with these alternatives, but these also needed to be quantified. 

 

Concerns were expressed that, once a way forward had been implemented, problems could be created for local residents, such as the presence of street drinkers, or incidences of anti-social behaviour.  The Director of Environmental Services confirmed that it was only in parks and play areas where it was known that no anti-social behaviour problems existed that an alternative system would be implemented straight away and assessed while in operation.

 

At the invitation of the Board, Councillor Coley addressed the meeting commenting that, although some parks and play areas currently did not have any problems, these could arise if they were not locked, (for example, travelling communities moving on to unsecured areas).

 

Councillor Suleman enquired whether consideration had been given to park user groups taking over the locking service on a voluntary basis.  The Director of Environmental Services confirmed that one option being considered was for the local community to take on the role.

 

Councillor Suleman then drew attention to the proposed increase in car parking charges, (proposal number ES21 referred), and questioned how this equated with the Council’s efforts to encourage people to use the City’s parks.  He suggested that the proposal to increase car parking charges needed to be reconsidered, as the increase would deter people from travelling to City parks.  However, it was noted that only two parks currently had car parking charges, which had been introduced to stop commuters using those car parks.

 

In considering the suggested closure of the Consumer Advice Centre (proposal number ES8), Councillor Russell reminded Members that much of the advice given at the Centre was available from other sources.  However, it was recognised that some people preferred a face-to-face service, so existing Customer Services staff would be supported to enable them to provide this advice.

 

At the invitation of the Board, Councillor Shelton, Deputy Leader of the Environment and Sustainability Task Group, addressed the meeting, enquiring whether consultation had been started on the suggestion that a county-wide shared service for regulatory services could be considered.  Councillor Russell explained that tentative approaches had been made to district authorities within the county.  Positive feedback had been received at Chief Executive level where approaches had been made.

 

Councillor Shelton also enquired whether cleansing levels could be maintained following the proposed reductions in street cleaning and whether surplus equipment would be sold, (proposals numbered ES11, ES12 and ES13).  Councillor Russell explained that the mechanical sweepers used by the Council were leased and that these leases were coming to an end.

 

Councillor Russell also confirmed that there was confidence that cleanliness levels would be maintained.  It already had been found that cleanliness sometimes was higher in areas where hand barrows were used, as operatives could access smaller areas.  Members of staff currently working on mechanical sweepers would be redeployed within cleansing services.

 

The Director of Environmental Services confirmed that amounts of visible litter in some areas could be greater than previously following this change to the service, but the risk of this had been taken in to account in presenting the proposal.  If it was found that the level of service was unacceptable, resources could be redirected as part of the risk mitigation process.  The frequency with which mechanical sweepers currently visited individual Wards depended on the nature of those Wards, as they were most effective in areas where there were wide, open spaces.  Currently, every road was swept at least once per week, the majority of these sweeps being by hand sweepers.

 

Although the reduction in carbon emissions that could be achieved through the reduction in use of mechanical sweepers was welcomed, Members were concerned that the increased use of manual cleansing services could lead to an increase in the number of repetitive strain injuries (RSIs) experienced by members of staff doing this cleaning.  The Director of Environmental Services advised that appropriate steps would be taken to ensure that staff could work safely and that the number of RSIs was not expected to increase.  The Director undertook to circulate information on the number of RSIs reported in this service.

 

Councillor Potter reminded Members that she had declared a personal interest in proposals numbered ES11, ES12 and ES13, as she knew some street cleaners personally.

 

Serious concerns were expressed about the proposed loss of a Gardener from Gilroes cemetery (proposal number ES15).  This was important work that currently was done to a very high standard and Members were concerned that this service would not be maintained.  They also questioned why the reduction could not be made at a management level.  The number of actual posts to be lost was questioned, as it was suggested that this could be more than one when agency staff were no longer employed.

 

The Director of Environmental Services advised that the proposal was not to lose one post, but was for the loss of one gardener.  It was expected that this would not lead to a significant reduction in the quality of service provided.  The Director further explained that one management post in Bereavement Services already had been lost.  There would be significant reductions in the Parks and Green Spaces service and it was hoped that as many of these as possible could be made at a management level.  The opportunity also would be taken to rationalise service delivery, which would include consideration of having shared management for the Parks, Green Spaces and Cleansing services.

 

In response to further questions about how the staffing implications had been assessed, the Director of Environmental Services explained that there currently were three vacancies in Bereavement Services.  One of these posts, that of Gardener, would be lost in the 2011/12 financial year, so no individual members of staff were at risk in that year.  Two posts would be deleted the following year, one of which currently was vacant and one of which would come from the core pool of staff. 

 

Councillor Suleman expressed concern at the proposal to increase non-cremation Bereavement Services fees and charges, (proposal number ES14), as the Council already owned the assets used in the service and he felt that there had not been proper consultation on the proposal.  The Director of Environmental Services reminded Members that, although Bereavement Services currently generated a significant financial surplus for the Council, ambitious savings needed to be achieved across the whole division.  Ways of achieving this without reducing service levels therefore had to be found.  Some improvements to Bereavement Services were planned, such as the introduction of a florist and the extension of the chapel at Gilroes cemetery, and which would benefit everyone.

 

Councillor Newcombe reminded Members that he had declared a personal interest in proposal number ES3, as he was a Trustee of the Bradgate Park and Swithland Wood Trust.

 

RESOLVED:

1)         that the report be noted;

 

2)         that Cabinet be requested to recommend to Council that the post of Gardener in Bereavement Services (included in proposal ES15) be retained; and

 

3)         that Cabinet be informed of the comments made by the Board on the remainder of the proposals relating to Environmental Services.

 

b)     Cultural Services

 

Richard Watson, Director of Culture, introduced the budget proposals for the Cultural Services division.  He explained that the proposals sought to prioritise front line services and drew attention to the levels of projected growth and recommended savings set out in the report.

 

In considering the proposal to introduce alternative management and operational arrangements for four museum sites (proposal number CS04), the Board noted that, if an alternative was adopted, the Council still would need to retain curators and storage space for each museum.  Sarah Levitt, Head of Arts and Museums, advised that the staff cost saving was  approximately £339,000 as detailed in CS04.  In view of this, Members questioned whether the saving that would be made by closing museums to visitors was significant enough to warrant the loss of this service.

 

In reply to further questions, the Head of Arts and Museums advised that it had not been decided how a scheme to offer free entry to museums only to city residents would operate (proposal CS08 referred).  One possibility was the use of different coloured stickers to differentiate who could access different parts of a facility.  This would include people attending events at the Council’s museums.

 

City residents would be required to provide evidence that they lived in the City, such as utility bills, library tickets, or membership cards for local organisations.  Councillors pointed out that many young people would not have these items and were advised that staff at the entrance to the museums would have to exercise an element of discretion in these cases.  The precise charges to be made would be decided if the principle was agreed.

 

It was noted that those who had served with the Royal Leicestershire Regiment would not have to pay an entry charge to the Newarke Houses Museum.  Consideration also would have to be given to what kind of entry could be given to various other categories of people, such as those who had made donations to the museums.

 

In reply to concerns that the Arts Council required free admission to some of its exhibitions, it was noted that this had been discussed with the Arts Council, which had indicated that it would consider this on an exhibition by exhibition basis.  It was felt that arrangements could be made to accommodate such exhibitions, such as making special offers, (for example, free admission), when these exhibitions were held.

 

The following comments were made during discussion on this proposal:-

 

·            Facilities such as the shops and cafés at the museums would lose revenue if visitor numbers reduced as a result of entrance charges being made;

 

·            New Walk Museum and Newarke Houses Museum had over 170,000 visitors per year.  Approximately 46% of these were from outside the City boundary, with approximately half of these being from outside the county;

 

·            In view of the anticipated number of visitors from outside the City, the income required was unlikely to be raised from a minimal entry charge;

 

·            The Leicester Mercury had quoted a possible entry charge of 20 pence, but it was not known how the newspaper had calculated this figure.  The amount to be charged had not been decided and would have to take account of the possible reduction in visitor numbers;

 

·            It was recognised that any system of charging admission would itself have a cost;

 

·            Calculations had been made to identify how much visitor numbers could drop if entry charges were made.  From these, it appeared to be worthwhile to introduce the charges as proposed;

 

·            Proposal CS08 had been made to avoid having to charge everyone who entered the museums in question.

 

In view of the comments made, it was suggested that proposal CS08 should be deleted.  Councillor Suleman reminded Members that he had declared a personal interest in this proposal, as he lived outside the City (but in the County).  As such, he would not vote on the motion to recommend its deletion.

 

The Board also expressed concern at the proposal to consider alternative management arrangements for sports and leisure facilities (proposal number CS15).  The Council would retain responsibility for plant and maintenance, so would still have significant costs to meet, and it therefore was suggested that this proposal should be deleted.

 

In response to questions from Councillor Suleman:-

 

·            The Head of Arts and Museums advised the Board that the closure of the Fosse Arts music studio had been agreed as part of the budget for the 2010/11 financial year (proposal CS03 referred).  Consequently, it had closed in September 2010; and

 

·            Paul Edwards, Head of Sports, advised that sites across the City had been considered for the Football Development Project, (proposal CS02 referred), but Aylestone Meadows was the only site large enough to host 21 football pitches.

 

With regard to proposal CS05, to discontinue plans to replace the City Gallery, the Board enquired why alternative management options were not being considered, as was suggested under proposal CS04 for other museums.  Richard Watson explained that this was a different situation, as this was a proposal not to proceed with a new building to replace one that previously had been leased.  However, consideration would be given to any offers by other organisations to take on management responsibilities.  Approximately £300,000 had been spent to date on the feasibility costs and other professional fees related to the original proposed new site for the Gallery.

 

RESOLVED:

1)     that the report be noted;

 

2)     that Cabinet be requested to recommend that proposal CS08 be deleted and admission charges be not introduced for non-City residents at New Walk Museum and Newarke Houses Museum;

 

3)     that Cabinet be requested to recommend that proposal CS15 be deleted, so that management responsibility for sports and leisure facilities is retained by the City Council; and

 

4)     that Cabinet be informed of the comments made by the Board on the remainder of the proposals relating to Cultural Services.

 

The meeting adjourned at 5.29 pm