charnwood borough council...“loughborough has again been given a gold award and judged the best...

Council – 16th September 2013Published – 9th October 2013

1

CHARNWOOD BOROUGH COUNCIL

MEETING OF THE CHARNWOOD BOROUGH COUNCILHELD IN

THE PRESTON ROOM, WOODGATE CHAMBERS, LOUGHBOROUGHON MONDAY, 16TH SEPTEMBER 2013

PRESENT

The Mayor (Councillor S. Forrest)The Deputy Mayor (Councillor P. Day)

Councillor T. BarkleyCouncillor L. BebbingtonCouncillor I. BentleyCouncillor J. BokorCouncillor J. BradshawCouncillor R. CampsallCouncillor J. CapletonCouncillor M. DraycottCouncillor C. DuffyCouncillor H. FryerCouncillor D. GrimleyCouncillor S. HampsonCouncillor P. HarleyCouncillor L. Harper-DaviesCouncillor C. HarrisCouncillor J. HuntCouncillor M. HuntCouncillor K. JonesCouncillor S. JonesCouncillor R. JukesCouncillor M. LoweCouncillor J. MiahCouncillor J. Morgan

Councillor P. OsborneCouncillor K. PaceyCouncillor T. PartonCouncillor J. PolandCouncillor C. PooleCouncillor C. RadfordCouncillor P. RansonCouncillor B. SeatonCouncillor R. SharpCouncillor R. ShepherdCouncillor S. ShergillCouncillor D. SlaterCouncillor M. SmidowiczCouncillor M. SmithCouncillor S. SmithCouncillor D. SnarttCouncillor N. StorkCouncillor J. SutheringtonCouncillor E. VardyCouncillor A. WilliamsCouncillor D. WiseCouncillor P. Youell

Honorary Alderman J. Tormey

25. COUNCILLOR BERNARD BURR

The Mayor made the following announcement:

“Many of you, like me will have attended the funeral of Councillor Bernard Burron 30th August. It was a fitting tribute to Bernard and his lifelong service to thecommunity. I know Rose and the family took great comfort from the support ofCouncillors and Officers, and also from the local community in Shepshedwhere Bernard was held in high esteem. I’m sure you will join with me incontinuing to keep Rose and the family in our thoughts”.


2

Councillor Radford, Councillor Burr’s fellow Ward Councillor in ShepshedWest, read a short poem ‘In praise of a man’ by Norman MacCaig.

Councillor members stood in silence reflecting on the words of the poem andthe life and service of Bernard Burr.

26. APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors D. Gaskell and B.Newton and Honorary Aldermen J. Bush B. Dodd, F. Hurst and A. Stott.

27. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY AND PERSONAL INTEREST

A disclosure of personal interest which could potentially lead to bias wasmade by Councillor Grimley in item 6.8 on the agenda, Question on Notice –Public concerns regarding the movement of the Police Front Desk, sinceCouncillor Grimley worked for the architects for the new Loughboroughpolice station.

28. MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of Council held on 24th June 2013 wereconfirmed and signed.

29. ANNOUNCEMENTS

29.1 MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

The Mayor made the following announcement:

New Councillors

“Since our last Council meeting in June, two new Councillors havejoined us. Councillor Mary Draycott, was elected to the Council on 5thSeptember to serve the residents of Loughborough Ashby Ward andhad the accolade of being our newest member for one whole weekwhen she was superseded by Councillor James Poland who waselected to the Council last Thursday 12th September to serve theresidents of Wreake Villages Ward. May I on behalf of the Councilcongratulate you both on your election and welcome you asCouncillors”.


3

29.2 LEADER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

The Leader made the following announcements:

East Midlands in Bloom

“Loughborough has again been given a gold award and judged theBest Small City in the region, in the recent East Midlands in BloomCompetition. I would like to congratulate all involved in this excellentachievement”.

“We were awarded 179 points out of 200 including an incredible 47out of 50 for community involvement and 90 out of 100 for horticulturalexcellence”.

“Especially singled out for praise were: Queens Park, Community Gardening and the Cemetery and

Crematorium; Wildflower Areas, The Bell Ringing and the Sculpture Displays;

and Sponsored Hanging Baskets, Allotments and the University

Grounds”.

New Councillors

“I would like to echo the Mayor’s welcome to our two new Councillorsand add my own congratulations to Cllr Draycott and Cllr Poland. BothMary and James encompassed that old saying of “If at first you don’tsucceed, try, try and try again”, because both of them triumphed thistime after previous attempts to join this Council were unsuccessful”.

“I look forward to working with them both”.

29.3 CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

No announcements were made by the Chief Executive.

30. PETITIONS

The following petitions were presented:

(i) by Councillor M. Smith, on behalf of residents in LoughboroughSouthfields Ward, concerning Park Road Tennis Courts, the petitioncontained 49 signatures and stated “We, the undersigned,respectfully ask Charnwood Borough Council to improve the conditionof the Park Road tennis courts. The surfaces are uneven, the linemarkings are difficult to see and the fence and some nets need repair.


4

We do appreciate having this free facility available from March toOctober”;

(ii) by Councillor Harley, on behalf of residents in Thurmaston Ward,entitled “Thurmaston Against 4500 Homes”, the petition contained263 signatures and stated “The signatures for this petition wereobtained by two people over a four hour period in Thurmaston. Thisbrief time frame and volume of signatures gained illustrates thestrength of feeling against the Core Strategy proposed by CharnwoodBorough Council for Thurmaston”;

(iii) by Councillor Seaton, on behalf of residents in Thurmaston Ward,entitled “Stop the Stench in Thurmaston”, the petition contained 74signatures and stated “We the undersigned all residents of, orworking within the area of Earls Way and the Dales, Thurmaston,petition the Charnwood Borough Council to take the necessary actionneeded to remove the chemical smells and fumes that seem to beemanating from a fabric finishers in Earls Way, Thurmaston. Manycomplaints/reports have been made to Charnwood EnvironmentalHealth by residents, Councillors and the Parish Council but no actionhas been taken. We are concerned as to the negative impacts thesefumes are having on children’s health and their possible connectionswith respiratory problems in the area. The smell has also had anegative impact in the enjoyment of our gardens and the smellpermeates throughout houses, meaning that our windows and doorshave to remain closed”; and

(iv) by Councillor M. Hunt, on behalf of residents in LoughboroughGarendon Ward, concerning Sir Robert Martin Court, the petitioncontained 119 signatures and stated “We the residents and otherconcerned parties connected with Sir Robert Martin Court, WindsorRoad, Loughborough, LE11 4LW. Hereby petition Housing 21 andCharnwood Borough Council as follows: We are a shelteredresidential accommodation and are very concerned about the floodingof our car park after heavy rains, particularly as there is no access foremergency services, taxis, carers and relatives to help residents,some of whom are in the age group 80-90 years. During storms, rainwater pours into our complex from both Windsor Road andSandringham Drive, flooding to a depth of +/- 2 feet. We areconcerned about the impact this is having on our elderly residents asthey are experiencing panic and fear during these times. Your urgentattention to the above would be greatly appreciated”.

All four petitions would be dealt with and responded to in accordance withthe Council’s Petitions Scheme.


5

31. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

31.1 AVAILABILITY OF 2 BED-ROOMED HOMES

Councillor Smidowicz had given notice under Full Council Procedures9.9(a) of the following question:

“Could the Leader or Lead Member tell us what action is being takento increase the availability of 2 bedroomed homes in the priorityneighbourhoods in our Borough?”

In response the Lead Member for Housing and Regulatory Services,Councillor J. Hunt, stated:

“Evidence from bidding activity through Choice Based Lettings hasidentified that 2 bedroom houses are one of the highest demand unittypes within the borough”.

“Responding positively to this, the Private Sector Housing Team have,in consultation with the Cabinet Lead Member for Housing andRegulatory Services, reserved the balance of the Council’sdiscretionary decent homes capital grant allocation from the RegionalHousing Board (approx £75k) for Partnership Grants and arecurrently targeting owners of empty 2 bedroomed houses in ourpriority neighbourhoods”.

“A Partnership Grant is a 50% grant awarded to owners of propertiesthat have been empty for 6 months or more to bring them up to thedecent homes standard. To qualify for grant aid the owner must agreeto make the property available for letting or give the Councilnomination rights for tenants in priority need from our HousingRegister. The conditions associated with the grant are summarised asfollows: The applicant will provide estimates for all work required. Thegrant awarded will be for 50% of the eligible costs up to a maximum of£15,000. The full grant must be repaid if the property is not let oravailable for letting for five years after the completion of works”.

Value of PartnershipGrant Awarded

NominationRights Period(years)

Available forprivate renting(years)

Total numberof yearspropertyavailable forletting

Up to £5000 0 2* 2£5,001 - £10,000 2 1* 3£10,001 - £15,000 3 2* 5

“Through the use of Council Tax data, 30 potential properties havebeen identified that are long term empty and external survey work has


6

just been completed to determine the likely cost of bringing each ofthe properties back into use. A scoring matrix has been developed toprioritise them and this has revealed that of these 30 properties 15may be suitable for possible grant aid. Officers will now be contactingthe owners of the properties to discuss their intentions and optionsand to gauge their interest in applying for Partnership Grant aid toreturn the properties back into use”.

“Additionally, through our development and enabling work we alwaysaim to optimise the number of 2 bedroom houses when negotiatingaffordable housing with potential developers. For example 7 of the 18rented units in Eastern Gateway phase 2 are 2 bedroom houses”.

31.2 CAR PARK SEASON TICKET

Councillor Parton had given notice under Full Council Procedures9.9(a) of the following question:

“Will the Leader and Lead Member commence investigations into thefeasibility of introducing car parking season tickets?”

In response the Lead Member for Housing and Regulatory Services,Councillor J. Hunt, stated:

“The Council operate many car parks throughout the Borough allserving the local community, visitors and businesses. Some of thesecar parks in our rural towns and villages are currently free and it is feltthat the introduction of a car parking season ticket in these locationswould not be appropriate or necessary”.

“In relation to the car parks serving Loughborough, there is a mix ofpay and display and pay on foot car parks. The Council alreadyoperate a 10 week permit scheme within the Beehive Lane andSouthfields Extension car parks, which operates like a season ticket.This is provided specifically for Loughborough Town Centre retailersand businesses. Full details of the scheme are provided on theCouncil’s web site. The scheme is regularly reviewed to ensure that itprovides a balance between providing spaces for businesses andensuring that there are sufficient spaces for shoppers and visitors toLoughborough”.

Councillor Parton made a statement in which he added that he hadmet a couple from Leicester who had a young child and did not havechange for the parking machine. Councillor Parton added that aseason ticket would be more convenient for regular visitors toLoughborough and this would also assist people who worked in theTown Centre, some of whom parked in the residential streets ofLoughborough Southfields Ward.


7

In response, Councillor J. Hunt stated a 10 week season ticket wasavailable for retailers and traders. Visitors worried about parkingcharges should be encouraged to use pay on foot facilities at BeehiveLane. Councillor J. Hunt added that proposals were being puttogether to extend pay on foot to Granby Street Car Park and alsoearly consideration was being given to a scheme where tickets werestamped, similar to the scheme at The Rushes.

31.3 CHRISTIAN CHARITIES

Councillor Parton had given notice under Full Council Procedures9.9(a) of the following question:

“Loughborough is most fortunate in that it has a brilliant selection ofcharitable organisations - ones which specifically help the most poorand vulnerable in our Borough. Nearly all of these are run byChristians”.

“Will the Council please confirm that these charities have its fullsupport, both by publicity, signposting users to these facilities and bythe providing of grants?”

In response the Lead Member for Neighbourhood Services,Councillor Snartt, stated:

“Charnwood has a large number of Charities and Voluntary Sectororganisations that deliver support and services to many of our poorand vulnerable residents. A number of these groups are affiliated withreligious organisations, not solely Christian ones”.

“The Council works in partnership with and fully supports many ofthese charitable organisations that deliver valuable community basedservices, for example, Charnwood Twenty Twenty, Minnie’s Friendsand Street Pastors. The Council’s Charnwood Grants programmehas provided grant support to many of these groups and continues todo so against the approved grants criteria, where there is provision ofa wider community service. Examples of organisations that have beensupported include the Carpenters Arms, Exario Trust, Shree RamKhrisna, Youth Shelter, Worth-it Projects Ltd and Shree Ram KrishnaCommunity Project – Saheli Women’s Project”.

“Charnwood News has often had articles about local success storiesfor these organisations and many of them were invited to attend thefirst Community Heroes Day event which took place in August whichwas held in the Market Place. This event provided a platform for thegroups to raise awareness of the work that they do and they also hada stall in the market to promote themselves and encouragevolunteering. The Council also found funding to provide all the groups


8

with publicity materials including promotional pop up stands that theycan use for future events”.

“The Council also regularly signposts residents to these organisationsand encourages the organisations to establish links with VoluntaryAction Leicestershire, Voluntary Action Charnwood and CharnwoodCitizen Advice Bureau to help further raise awareness of theirservices”.

Councillor Parton made a statement clarifying that he had recentlybeen speaking to a Christian Pastor about this issue. He added thatit could have been a Muslim or a Hindu. Many of the issues were thesame, community groups trying their hardest to support the needyand Councillor Parton asked that the Council make a commitment tosupport all such groups.

In response, Councillor Snartt stated the answer to the originalquestion describes what the Council is trying to achieve under theCharnwood Grants Scheme. The Council had a good sense ofdirection and worked with communities to achieve the best results.Councillor Snartt concluded that the Council would advise andsignpost where required ensuring that all possible help and advicewas given.

31.4 IS THE BEDROOM TAX HURTING LOCAL CARERS?

Councillor Sharp had given notice under Full Council Procedures9.9(a) of the following question:

“Research by Carers UK has shown that carers are being forced tocut back on essentials such as food and electricity because of theBedroom Tax. Heléna Herklots, chief executive of Carers UK hasstated: This policy is having a shocking impact on families alreadystruggling to care for seriously ill or disabled loved ones. Carers,whose contribution is often warmly praised by ministers, are beingmade to feel like they are being punished. These are carers who needan extra room just to get a few hours of sleep as they care 24/7 for adisabled child, or who are unable to share with a partner because ofserious illness".

“Can the Leader confirm:o How many local carers are hit by the Bedroom Tax?o What action has been undertaken by CBC officers to assess

the impact of the Bedroom Tax on carers locally?o How many carers have applied for discretionary funding and

how many have been successful?”

In response the Lead Member for Revenues and Benefits andCustomer Services, Councillor Bokor, stated:


9

“The Council is not required to monitor Discretionary HousingPayment (DHP) requests from individual Groups except for those inreceipt of Disability Living Allowance higher rate. The purpose ofDHP’s is to assist all those in receipt of benefits who are in severefinancial hardship”.

“At the end of August 2013 133 cases had been awarded a DHPtotalling £51,607 out of the total pot of £132,326. The Councilcontinues to assess all claims for Discretionary Housing Payments inline with the policy agreed across Leicestershire. This policy is theone delivered by most local councils across the Country and is linewith the April 2013 DWP DHP Guidance Manual which includes theLocal Authority Good Practice Guide. Officers from the Councilcontinue to assess how all the changes resulting from the WelfareReform Act are impacting on all housing benefit and council taxsupport recipients”.

“The Benefits Service meet fortnightly with Housing Officers todiscuss all aspects of Welfare Reform and have recently started toengage with the Supporting Families officers now based atCharnwood. The Money Advice Service have also been engaged towork in partnership with the Council from the end of September andthey will be starting a series of one to one budget health checkinterviews with any customers suffering financial hardship”.

Councillor Sharp made a statement in which he added that theCouncil had the moral responsibility in Charnwood to protect localcarers, who contributed so much to the local community. As asupplementary question, Councillor Sharp asked that the LeadMember find out how many local carers were affected by welfarereform and to find a way of helping them.

In response, Councillor Bokor stated that she was happy to acceptsuggestions but could only respond to questions.

31.5 IS THE BEDROOM TAX LEADING TO INCREASED FOOD BANKUSE IN CHARNWOOD


“The number of people being fed by charity food banks during thethree months since the government's welfare changes took effect hasrisen by 200%, according to the Trussell Trust. More than half of the150,000 people receiving emergency food aid from Trussell foodbanks between April and June 2013 were referred because of benefitdelays, sanctions, and financial difficulties relating to the BedroomTax and abolition of Council Tax relief, it said”.


10

“Could the Leader confirm:o We targeted 13.5 days to process new Housing and Council

Tax benefit claims and change of events in 2012/13 (KI 2) –what was our actual performance?

o Have we seen a similar increase in food bank users inCharnwood?

o Have we conducted any research into the use of food banks byresidents hit with the Bedroom Tax?

In response the Lead Member for Revenues and Benefits andCustomer Services Councillor Bokor, stated:

“The target is the average time taken to process claims and it was setprior to any of the changes around the spare room subsidy, localcouncil tax support the benefit cap and the introduction of the DWPAutomated Transfers to local authority systems (ATLAS)”.

“The majority of Local Authorities have had difficulties coping with theWelfare Reform act changes which are widely reported as the mostsignificant for 60 years”.

“In the final quarter of year ending 31st March 2013 performanceagainst this target was an average of 15.01 days for new claims andchanges in circumstances”.

“The Council has been working with and supporting a number oforganisations across the Borough who provide a Food Bank serviceincluding food parcels and ‘Soup’ kitchens. Many of the localchurches and other groups such as Minnies Friends provide hot foodon a weekly or daily basis and The Bridge work a voucher system forpeople to get hot food from the local groups. At a County level therehas been some joint work done to identify and create acomprehensive list of the organisations providing these services tohelp with signposting and referrals”.

“Work is also being done through the County Waste Management,Love Food, Hate Waste initiative to help with budgeting, healthycooking and reducing food waste. A scheme is about to start inCharnwood working with identified people through the SLF andNeighbourhood Management Teams, with team members also beingtrained to deliver future advice and courses”.

Councillor Sharp made a statement stating that a few weeks beforeLoughborough had been successful with Britain in Bloom, residentsfrom Shepshed facing hardship had walked to Loughborough toqueue up for food parcels. Council Sharp added that the biggestsingle cause of the rise in queues for food parcels had been the


11

effects of welfare reform. Councillor Sharp asked the Lead Memberto log the reasons for food bank usage.

In response, Councillor Bokor stated that the Council was taking onaverage 15 days to process claims, which was slightly above target.Councillor Bokor urged Councillor Sharp to collect names and detailswhere he became aware of hardship, Councillor Bokor concluded shecould only help where she was aware of hardship and had evidenceto support it.

31.6 IS THE BEDROOM TAX HURTING THE DISABLED INCHARNWOOD?


“A report by the disability charity Papworth Trust shows that 9 in 10disabled people are being forced to cut back on food or payinghousehold bills after being refused emergency housing payments tohelp them pay the bedroom tax. It states almost one in three disabledapplicants are being rejected for discretionary housing payments(DHPs) from the government fund intended to provide assistance tohousing benefit claimants who are unable to pay a shortfall in theirrent”.

“Almost two-thirds of people affected nationally by the Bedroom Taxare disabled. DHPs were widely promoted by the government asprotecting people with disabilities from the worst effects of the BedroomTax. Yet disabled people are no more likely to be given an emergencyhousing payment than non-disabled people, the research found, even ifthey live in adapted properties”.

“David Martin, strategy director at the Papworth Trust, says: Thegovernment asked councils to prioritise people with disabilities andlong-term health conditions when deciding who should get emergencypayments. This simply isn't happening".

“David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation,describes the bedroom tax as "an unfair, unworkable policy that shouldbe repealed". He says: How can we ask vulnerable and disabledpeople to eat or drink less, heat their home less or cut back on medicalexpenses? The government says discretionary housing payments willprotect them, but the Papworth Trust findings make it clear that thistemporary measure isn't even a short-term solution".

“Can the Leader confirm:o How many disabled residents have been hit by the Bedroom

Tax?


12

o How many disabled residents have applied to the DHP fundand how many have been successful?

o That we adhering to the Work & Pension Minister’s advice todisregard income from disability-related benefits whenconsidering DHP requests, as they are intended to be used tohelp pay for the extra costs of disability?

o What actions have the Council taken to assess the impact ofthe Bedroom Tax on local disabled families?”


“There are 167 disabled families who were subject to the Spare RoomSubsidy. All of these households were sent a form to claim a DHPand the 34 properties with disabled children were hand deliveredforms as agreed with Councillor Sharp in February 2013”.

“The Council is not required to monitor claims for individual groupsexcept for those in receipt of Disability Living Allowance Higher Rate.We have received one application which was awarded”.

“The Council continues to assess all claims for Discretionary HousingPayments in line with the policy agreed across Leicestershire. Thispolicy is the one delivered by most local councils across the Countryand is line with the April 2013 DWP DHP Guidance Manual whichincludes the Local Authority Good Practice Guide”.

“This document states that the allocation of the additional funding fordisabled people broadly reflects the impact of this measure and theadditional funding needed to support this group. However, due to thediscretionary nature of the scheme, LA’s should not specificallyexclude any group affected by the removal of the spare room subsidyor any other welfare reform. It is important that Local Councils areflexible in their decision making. There are no rules on financial issuesto be taken into account when considering awards of DHP”.

“Each claim is assessed on its own individual circumstances and insome cases for instance where a disabled benefit recipient is inreceipt of mobility allowance which they use for a car to take them tohospital regularly that income is disregarded for DHP purposes. Alsoany request for a DHP from Customers who have had ‘significantlyadapted accommodation including adaptions made for children’ aregranted”.

“Officers from the Council continue to assess how all the changesresulting from the Welfare Reform Act are impacting on all housingbenefit and council tax support recipients. The Benefits Service meetfortnightly with Housing Officers to discuss all aspects of WelfareReform and have recently started to engage with the Supporting


13

Families officers now based at Charnwood. The Money AdviceService have also been engaged to work in partnership with theCouncil from the end of September and they will be starting a seriesof one to one budget health check interviews with any customerssuffering financial hardship”.

Councillor Sharp made a statement in which he added that whiledisability charities published information concerning the effects ofwelfare reform on the disabled, the Council was stating that sincethere was no requirement to monitor claims for individual groups, itdid not do it. Councillor Sharp added that two-thirds were in arrearsand this was likely to be due to the effects of welfare reform.Councillor Sharp asked as a supplementary question, if the Councilwould research the effects on people with disabilities?

In response, Councillor Bokor stated that the Council had provided£132,000 to help those in financial hardship. To date 133applications for assistance had been granted totalling £50,000. 178applications had been rejected because it was deemed there wassufficient income. In such circumstances the applicant was offeredreferral for budgeting advice. Councillor Bokor concluded that manydisabled residents had welcomed the spare room subsidy as anopportunity to downsize to a property more suitable to their needs.

31.7 ARE OUR TENANTS SAFE?

Councillor M. Smith had given notice under Full Council Procedures9.9(a) of the following question:

“In 2012/13 there were seven fires and two fatalities in CBCproperties, including the Victoria Street flats in my own Ward. This isan extremely worrying performance and poses questions as towhether we are meeting our duty to keep residents safe in theirhomes”.

“Could the Leader confirm:o What were the causes of this dreadful performance?o Has a Fire Risk Assessment been completed across the

housing stock and if so what risks and shortfalls have beenidentified and what actions are to be taken to ensure the futuresafety of our tenants?

o Has an audit been undertaken to assess whether our internalits practices meet the standards expected of the authority andif so what are its findings?

o Have there been any further incidents since March 2013 and ifso what actions have been taken?”


14

In response the Lead Member for Housing and Regulatory Services,Councillor J. Hunt stated:

1. “The Council takes its responsibilities to tenants extremelyseriously, and compliance issues have been the number onepriority for the service since it came back in house. We weresaddened by the fatalities in the properties, and offer oursincere sympathies to the families of those affected. In additionwe are also aware of the trauma that fire causes for residents,and offer as much support and assistance as we can. In thecase of the seven fires in CBC housing property during2012/13, the fire service investigations identified the causes asactions related to occupants or visitors to the properties”.

2. “Fire risk assessments are required in properties which havecommunal facilities and not to individual properties. When themanagement of the landlord service was brought back inhouse, an immediate review of all the compliance issues wasundertaken, and it was found that the former CNH had notundertaken the fire risk assessments that were required.Therefore a programme was put in place and all 80 of ourhousing schemes with communal areas which require an FRAwere completed by the end of December 2012. Theseidentified a number of low, medium and high priority actionsthat are required, and that action plan is now being deliveredon a risk basis. In total 1205 actions were identified across allschemes, and a capital programme commitment of £564,904funding during 2013/14 has been made to improve emergencylighting and replace fire alarms, as identified in the action plan.In addition the other actions are being worked through, andsome of these will be familiar to members, including reviewingall communal stairways to ensure that they are kept clear ofpotential obstructions and fire hazards, such as scooters,bicycles, furniture and bric a brac. In addition inspections arebeing made to identify areas of accumulated rubbish, and toundertake visual checks on fire safety measures. In addition tofulfilling our legal requirements through the FRA’s the Councilhas also installed smoke detectors into all tenants homes andundertakes regular servicing of these, and officers carry out ahome safety check with all new tenants. We are workingclosely with Leicestershire Fire and Rescues service on jointtraining, and the LFRS has written an advisory article for thetenants’ newsletter”.

3. “The Strategic Director of Housing Planning and Regenerationand Regulatory Services, requested an internal audit beundertaken into the fire safety monitoring processes that wereinherited from the former CNH, to ensure that the procedureswere effective. This audit has now been presented to the


15

Housing Management Advisory Board and the AuditCommittee and identified a number of areas for improvement,giving only limited assurance at this time about how theprocesses are managed. The progress in delivering the actionplan is being monitored by both the internal audit team and themanagers of the housing service with a number of actionsalready progressed since the audit was completed”.

4. “There was a fire in a communal stairway in a block of flats inJune 2013, and there was no damage to any individualproperty and no injuries to tenants. The inspection by theLeicestershire Fire and Rescue Service resulted in anEnforcement Notice being served by the Leicestershire Fireand Rescue Service to improve the fire prevention measures inthe block. The majority of the actions in the notice have beencompleted, and a joint inspection of the scheme with the LFRStook place on 31st July and provided evidence of all the actionscompleted so far to the satisfaction of the LFRS. A furthermeeting to review progress has been arranged with LFRS onsite on 25th September”.

5. “The housing management advisory board will receive regularreports on all compliance issues so that they, and mostimportantly our tenants, can be assured that we are fulfillingour statutory obligations and making our tenants safety apriority”.

Councillor M. Smith made a statement adding that safety standardshad slipped, while Charnwood Neighbourhood Housing had notundertaken the required fire risk assessments, they were a whollyowned subsidiary of the Council. Councillor M. Smith asked whetherthe Council would assist with replacement of batteries in smokedetectors in elderly and vulnerable tenant’s homes?

In response, Councillor J. Hunt stated that the safety of tenants werethe Council’s number one priority. Loss of life had been extremelysad, nevertheless the fire service had attributed the cause of the firesto occupants and visitors and not the Council. Councillor J. Huntadded that risk assessments had been completed and smokedetectors had been installed in tenant’s homes. Implementation ofthe action plan was monitored by the Audit Committee and theHousing Management Advisory Board.

31.8 PUBLIC CONCERNS REGARDING THE MOVEMENT OF THEPOLICE FRONT DESK

Councillor Grimley, having made a disclosure of personal interestwhich could potentially lead to bias, left the room during considerationof this item.


16

Councillor M. Smith had given notice under Full Council Procedures9.9(a) of the following question:

“Many residents are concerned about the proposed closure of theFront Desk at the Loughborough Police Station and its possible moveto co-locate at Southfields. It is appreciated that severe budget cutsare being made including the removal of 300 police staff, howeverthere is considerable unrest with various concerns being expressed,namely:

1. The hours of direct contact with the ‘desk’ police officer is to bedrastically reduced during the week and no access providedduring evenings or at weekends.

2. Having to ask for the Police Desk at customer services wherethere are often many people is a privacy worry especially ifreporting a crime or worries about local anti-social behaviour.

3. If you phone 101 you may not want to have a police visit where atpresent you can just call into the police station.

4. At the moment, if there is an incident, the police station provideseasy access to all.

5. It is appreciated that the numbers presently calling at the frontdesk of the police station is small but it provides comfort toresidents that it is there".

“Would the Leader confirm that in discussing co-location, theconcerns of residents are considered and that risks of any possiblenegative impact upon customer service and the safety of customersand staff are addressed?”


“I can confirm that co-location is being actively considered by a jointworking group of senior police and council officers. The provision of aPolice ‘Front Desk’ in Loughborough is of course principally theresponsibility of the Leicestershire Police Force but I am able toconfirm that the concerns of residents, the impact on customerservice, and the safety of residents and staff are being fullyconsidered in co-location discussions”.

“I am not in a position to comment on most of the detailed pointsraised above (as these matters are for the Police to decide) but theissues of privacy and safety have been recognised in the initial co-location proposals, which would entail new signage and a re-


17

configuration of the customer services area. I am also able to reportthat the customer services team are very positive about the prospectof having police staff within our reception area. as is the case atRushcliffe Borough Council, where the Police have shared theCustomer Service Area for some years now with many benefits toboth the Council and to the Police, such as being close to the ContactCentre which they need to visit regularly for CCTV footage”.

"This is an excellent example of Partnership Working withinLeicestershire and helps both parties achieve their aims with shared,hence lowered, cost”.

Councillor M. Smith asked as a supplementary question, whether theLeader would make representations to the Police and CrimeCommissioner on behalf of residents who were concerned aboutthere being no out of hours service and no direct access to policeofficers?

In response, Councillor Bokor stated that the Leader would considerexpressing these concerns to the Police and Crime Commissionerwhere necessary. Councillor Bokor added that the proposal to sharefacilities would improve customer service.

31.9 ARE WE MANAGING ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR EFFECTIVELY?

Councillor Williams had given notice under Full Council Procedures9.9(a) of the following question:

“I am aware of a growing number of resident complaints in HastingsWard concerning anti-social behaviour. In 2012/13 there were 421cases of ASB reported to the Housing team. In the first four months of2013/14 there have already been 256 recorded cases of ASB with 192cases still active and unresolved at the end of July”.

“Can the Leader explain:1. What are the causes of the increase?2. What actions are being taken to tackle the problem?3. Whether we have sufficient staff to respond to this spike in ASB

cases and clear the growing backlog?”

In response the Lead Member for Housing and Regulatory Services,Councillor J. Hunt stated:

1. “The landlord service receives referrals in relation to ASB from avariety of sources. In the first four months of 2013/14, 256 newcases were opened. Of these 75 had already been registered ascases, and 51 were determined to not be ASB issues. During thesame four month period 209 cases were closed”.


18

“There remain 192 open cases at the ends of August that arebeing dealt with by housing management. Some of these casesare ongoing from previous years. The trend in relation to ASBcases indicates that there is a tendency for an increase in theactivity during the summer months, when there is a lot moreactivity out of doors. This has been the case this year, with a peakof reports in July”.

2. “All cases are assessed on a risk basis, and high level cases aredealt with through a multi-agency Joint Action Group (JAG). Itscurrent case load in relation to housing cases was ten at the endof August. There are a range of remedies available to landlordservices in relation to ASB and breaches of tenancy, with anincremental approach being adopted that reflects the severity ofthe case. These range from low level neighbour disputes to morecomplex cases that are dealt with by the joint action group whichrequire multiple agencies to be involved. The remedies range frommediation to ultimately eviction, and a wide range of other actionsin between. Each case is considered on its merits”.

3. “The housing staff deal with ASB as part of the service thatmanages tenancies and the relationship with tenants. There is adesignated team of officers within the service that dealsspecifically with the ASB aspects of tenancy management,although all housing management staff can have interaction withtenants in relation to some of the problems that are reported. Thesenior management team leading the landlord service is now inplace, and as advised previously to Cabinet, the staffing structuresfor the service teams will be reviewed to ensure that we providethe most effective services to tenants”.

Councillor Williams asked as a supplementary question, whether theLead Member would write to the Police and Crime Commissioner onbehalf of Loughborough Hastings Ward residents to express theirconcerns and ask for a response?

In response, Councillor J. Hunt stated that the Council managedaround 6,000 homes and therefore, there would be cases of anti-social behaviour. Councillor J. Hunt added that the figures on anti-social behaviour were generally low for the Borough, although therehad been an increase during the summer, mainly due to the goodweather. Councillor J. Hunt concluded that she was not aware of adecrease in policing in Loughborough Hastings but she would find outand if there had been she would raise this with the Police and CrimeCommissioner.


19

31.10 FINANCIAL STRATEGY

Councillor Stork had given notice under Full Council Procedures9.9(a) of the following question:

“Does the Leader agree that the current financial strategy is morereadily described as housekeeping rather than attaining a strategicgoal?”

“Would he further agree that a test of a good strategy would have anattainable yet difficult to achieve target, and that the test would coversuch matters as windfall income, vagaries in Government funding anda programme of asset maintenance".

In response the Lead Member for Finance and Property Services,Councillor Barkley, stated:

“No we do not agree that the current Medium Term Financial Strategy(MTFS) is merely housekeeping. The MTFS provides a high levelassessment of the financial resources required to deliver theCouncil’s corporate objectives and considers how these resourcescan be provided within the general financial context and changes tothe Council’s funding over a three year period. From that the Councilcan consider whether it wishes to change the range of services itprovides or the way in which individual services are provided”.

“With the relatively short timescales used by central government therehas to be a reactive element to the MTFS and matters such as assetmaintenance were covered by the Asset Management Strategyagreed by Council in June 2013. The over-arching goal is to achievethe action plans set out in the Council’s corporate plan and the MTFSaims to show how these can be financed or if there will be difficultiesin doing so”.

Councillor Stork made a statement adding that a strategy setting outto balance the books was simple housekeeping. Councillor Storkasked a supplementary question concerning whether the Councilwould develop a strategy to address the future challenges?

In response, Councillor Barkley stated that the Council had aCorporate Plan setting out service priorities, a Medium Term FinancialStrategy to ensure effective revenue spending and a Capital Plan tocover capital expenditure. Councillor Barkley added that while theCouncil was operating in a difficult financial environment, it hadmanaged to reduce spending, maintain services and increasecustomer satisfaction. Councillor Barkley concluded that this hadonly been achieved through careful planning.


20

31.11 LOCAL RETAIL LEVY

Councillor Smidowicz had given notice under Full Council Procedures9.9(a) of the following question:

“Is the Leader aware of a national campaign of an organisation whoseaim is to persuade the Secretary of State under the SustainableCommunities Act to give local authorities the power to introduce alocal levy of 8.5% of the rate on large retail outlets in their area; orcould this levy be considered an unfair tax on successfulbusinesses?”

In response the Deputy Leader, Councillor Hampson, stated:

“Local Works is a coalition of over 120 national organisations whichcame together to campaign for the enactment of the SustainableCommunities Act 2007 which aims to reverse the problem ofcommunity decline. The organisation now campaigns to promote theapplication and implementation of the Act”.

“Local Works is currently pursuing a campaign to reduce the impact ofsupermarkets upon communities. The campaign seeks support forcouncils to have the power to impose an additional 8.5% businessrate levy on large retail outlets in their area with a rateable value ofnot less than £500,000 and the power to use the revenue collected toimprove local economic activity, local services and facilities, socialand community wellbeing and environmental protection”.

“It is argued that such a levy has already been introduced in NorthernIreland and Scotland. In Scotland the levy is restricted to largebusinesses which sell alcohol and tobacco, thereby predominantlyapplying to supermarkets”.

“Within Charnwood there are six retail stores having rateable valuesin excess of £500,000 (five of which are supermarkets) with acombined rateable value of £7,515,000. The product of an 8.5% levywould be £638,775”.

“The principle of raising a local levy is not without precedent. TheLoughborough Business Improvement District raises a 1.5% levyacross all businesses within the defined town centre area with theproceeds being invested in supporting the enhancement of the towncentre as a shopping and business destination in accordance with thefive year plan set out in the prospectus”.


21

31.12 CORE STRATEGY CONSULTATION

Councillor M. Hunt had given notice under Full Council Procedures9.9(a) of the following question:

1. “Would the Leader tell me how many responses to the latestpublic consultation on the Pre-submission Core strategy comefrom each part of the Borough (measured according to thenumber elements of postcode e.g. LE12 9, LE11 4 etc,particularly in Loughborough), how many of each are personal(as opposed to representing interests of commercial or statutoryconsultees and other groups), and how numbers of responses ingeneral compare with the 2006 and 2008 public consultations?”

2. “When will consultees receive the Councils response to theircontributions?”

In response the Lead Member for Planning and Sustainability,Councillor Vardy, stated:

1. “The table below shows the number of personal, commercial,statutory and other responses that have come from individualPost Code Areas.

PostCode

TotalNo.

Commercial Statutory Other Personal

B3 1 1 1B30 2 2 2B79 8 1 1


22

PostCode

TotalNo.


B91 2 1 1BB4 8 2 2Bs5 1 1CV10 9 1 1CW12 1 1 1DE12 6 1 1DE23 4 1 1DE4 2 1 1DE5 8 1 1DE72 2 1 1DE74 2 4 1 1 2DN8 5 1 1KA7 4 1 1KT10 9 1 1LE1 1 2 2LE1 4 1 1LE1 5 1 1LE1 6 2 1 1LE11 1 4 2 2LE11 2 7 3 4LE11 3 29 3 26LE11 4 100 1 99LE11 5 57 57LE12 5 507 4 503LE12 6 1 1LE12 7 38 1 37LE12 8 10 1 1 8LE12 9 189 2 1 186LE13 0 1 1LE13 1 2 1 1LE14 2 2 2LE14 3 3 3LE14 4 2 2LE15 6 1 1LE15 8 2 2LE15 9 1 1LE18 2 2 2


23

PostCode

TotalNo.


LE18 4 1 1LE19 1 1 1LE19 2 1 1LE2 1 2 2LE2 2 1 1LE2 3 3 3LE2 5 2 1 1LE2 6 3 3LE2 7 3 3LE2 8 2 2LE2 9 6 6LE3 1 2 2LE3 2 1 1LE3 3 3 3LE3 5 1 1LE3 6 2 2LE3 8 2 2LE3 9 2 2LE4 0 1 1LE4 1 1 1LE4 2 6 6LE4 3 6 6LE4 4 7 1 1 5LE4 6 2 2LE4 7 1 1LE4 8 268 1 1 266LE4 9 55 55LE5 0 1 1LE5 1 47 47LE5 2 4 4LE5 4 1 1LE5 5 3 3LE5 6 3 3LE5 7 1 1LE6 0 3 3LE67 1 1 1LE67 3 1 1


24

PostCode

TotalNo.


LE67 4 3 3LE67 5 2 2LE7 1 50 50LE7 2 223 1 222LE7 3 133 3 1 129LE7 4 32 1 31LE7 6 1 1LE7 7 663 3 1 659LE7 8 5 5LE7 9 35 35LE8 0 1 1LE8 5 2 2LE8 6 3 3LE8 8 2 2LE8 9 1 1LE9 2 1 1LN 2 1 1N1 1 1 1NG 8 2 1 5NN 2 1 1NP 2 2PE 1 1PO 2 2S 3 1 2SW 1 1Unknown 175 8 37 130W1 1 1WA 1 1WC 1 1Totals 2793 15 28 61 2689


25

The number of comments received and the number ofconsultees from the most recent and previous consultations isset out below:

Consultation Event Number ofcomments

Number ofConsultees

Pre-submission 2013 3,212 2,793

Further Consultation 2008 2,857 1,564

Preferred Options 2006 N/a 1,350

2. “Consultees will receive a response to their representationsonce the Inspector makes his/her report. This is expected inJune/July 2014”.

31.13 PROVISION OF FACILITIES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE IN THORPEACRE

Councillor Campsall had given notice under Full Council Procedures9.9(a) of the following question:

“Is the Leader aware of the view of many local residents in ThorpeAcre that there is insufficient provision of facilities for young people?”

“Given the success of projects in Shepshed, Mountsorrell and theWarwick Way and Peel Drive areas of Loughborough, would theLeader work with local councillors and the residents group to explorethe possibility of setting up a community facility?”

In response the Lead Member for Neighbourhood Services,Councillor Snartt, stated:

“As part of the Council’s Neighbourhood Management work in thisarea, it has been recognised that there are insufficient youth activitiesand engagement with local youth in the Thorpe Acre area, particularlyfor the most disaffected young people”.

“In response a number of activities have been developed to engageyoung people from within this neighbourhood. This includespartnership work between the County Youth Service and theCouncil’s Sport and Active Recreation team. Weekly evening ParkourSessions are taking place at Charnwood College where disaffectedyoung people are now being actively engaged in free sessions,additional monies have also been secured by the Council to ensurethe continuation of these sessions. In addition, the Council hasfunded places for Thorpe Acre young people on a course at theIndoor Climbing Centre and recognising the gap in targeted provision


26

over the summer, organised and promoted two weeks ofactivities held on Jubilee Park and Warwick Way estate, specificallyfor local young people”.

“In addition, following a recommendation from the PerformanceScrutiny Panel that consideration should be given to the provision oftwo additional Community Hubs in Shelthorpe and Thorpe Acre,Scrutiny Management Board requested an officer report detailing thefeasibility and need for these two additional community hubs which iscurrently being prepared and is scheduled to go to PerformancePanel on 1st October 2013”.

31.14 FACILITIES FOR BUS USERS

Councillor M. Hunt had given notice under Full Council Procedures9.9(a) of the following question:

“Many regular bus users are rightly angry at the conditions they haveto put up with in Loughborough and this also reflected in thecontinuing demand for a town bus station. The County Council hasnot given their concerns adequate attention in redesigningLoughborough Town Centre to take advantage of the Inner ReliefRoad. Will the Leader intervene on behalf of Charnwood's many bususers to ensure the long over due improvements to facilities areincluded in the scheme before it is too late?”

In response the Lead Member for Planning and Sustainability,Councillor Vardy, stated:

“The 2001 Steer Davies Gleave study of bus facilities inLoughborough recommended the delivery of high quality passengersupport facilities clustered around an ‘on street’ hub focused onBaxter Gate, Swan Street and High Street (in order to meet operatorand passenger demands to deliver maximum bus penetration to theheart of the shopping area). In 2003, Cabinet approved an approachlargely based upon the recommendations in the report. This preferredapproach has closely informed the preparation of the LoughboroughTown Centre Transport Scheme (LTCTS) currently advanced byLeicestershire County Council”.

“Once the scheme has been completed, Loughborough will have arange of high quality public transport facilities, which has beeninformed by close engagement with operators and passengers overthe last 10 years. Charnwood Borough Council will continue toengage with Leicestershire County Council, bus operators and bususer representatives as the scheme progresses, for example throughmechanisms such as the Loughborough Quality Bus Partnership”.“However, there is also a role for those County Councillors who


27

represent wards in the Borough to represent public concerns atCounty level”.

Councillor M. Hunt made a statement adding that many wereconcerned that while £11 million invested in a new road, buses wouldstill be using the route of the old A6. With no proposals for a newbus station, Councillor M. Hunt asked a supplementary question thatthe Lead Member address the issues raised by bus users, the TownTeam and the Chamber of Trade with Leicestershire County Council?

In response, Councillor Vardy stated that the Council continued toengage with Leicestershire County Council to ensure the bestpossible scheme for bus users and the community.

32. BUSINESS RESERVED TO COUNCIL

32.1 SCRAP METAL DEALERS ACT 2013 FEES

A report of the Chief Executive seeking approval for the process for thedetermination of the relevant fees that would be charged forapplications made under the provisions of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act2013, in the event of allocation of this responsibility as a non-executivefunction, was submitted (item 7.1 on the agenda filed with theseminutes).

It was proposed by Councillor Pacey and seconded by CouncillorJ Hunt and

RESOLVED that, should responsibility be allocated as a non-executive function, that the Head of Regulatory Services beauthorised, in consultation with the Chair of Licensing Committee, toset the fees to accompany all applications for a licence made underthe Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013.

Reason

To ensure that the relevant fees can be charged on thecommencement date for licenses made under the Scrap MetalDealers Act 2013, in the event that the Government issues secondarylegislation determining that the power is a non-executive function.

32.2 APPOINTMENT OF CO-OPTED PARISH MEMBER OF THEMEMBER CONDUCT COMMITTEE

A report of the Monitoring Officer, enabling the Council to make afurther appointment of a co-opted parish member of the MemberConduct Committee to fill the third available position, was submitted(item 7.2 on the agenda filed with these minutes).


28

It was proposed by Councillor Smidowicz and seconded by CouncillorPoole and

RESOLVED: that Councillor Ralph Raven, a member of ThurmastonParish Council, be appointed as a non-voting co-opted parishmember of the Member Conduct Committee until 24th June 2015 oruntil he ceases to be a parish councillor, whichever would be thesooner.

Reason

To fill a vacancy on the Committee and provide the opportunity forparish councillors to contribute to the work of the Committee.

33. CALL IN REFERENCES

There were no call in references from Scrutiny.

34. MINUTE REFERENCES

There were no minute references.

35. URGENT EXECUTIVE DECISIONS EXEMPT FROM CALL-IN

There had been no executive decisions which were exempt from call-in sincethe Council meeting on 24th June 2013.

36. MOTIONS ON NOTICE

No motions on notice had been submitted.

37. CHANGES TO THE CABINET AND THE DELEGATION OF EXECUTIVEFUNCTIONS

A report of the Chief Executive, informing Council of changes to themembership of the Cabinet and to the scheme of delegation to officersrelating to Executive functions, was submitted (item 12 on the agenda filedwith these minutes).

There were no questions concerning this item.

38. APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES

Council considered proposals to make changes to committee membership forthe current Council Year (2013/14) (item 13 on the agenda).

It was proposed by Councillor Slater and seconded by Councillor Miah and


29

RESOLVED that

Councillor Poland be appointed to the Conservative Group vacancyon Audit Committee from Wednesday 18th September 2013;

Councillor Draycott be appointed to the Labour Group vacancy onAudit Committee;

Councillor Wise be appointed to the Conservative Group vacancy onLicensing Committee; and

Councillors Gaskell and Poland be appointed to Policy Scrutiny Groupand Councillor Bentley no longer be a member of Policy Scrutiny.Group

Reason

To fill vacancies on the Council’s Committees.

Note

These minutes are subject to confirmation as a correct record at the nextordinary meeting of Council, which is scheduled for Monday 11th November2013.

charnwood borough council...“loughborough has again been given a gold award and judged the best...

Documents