Agenda Item No: 2 (b) S
Democratic Support Service PO Box 136 County Hall Northampton NN1 1AT
MINUTES of the Business Meeting of the NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL held at County Hall, Northampton on 28 November 2013 at 10.30am
PRESENT: Councillor Joan Kirkbride (Chairman) Councillor Stan Heggs (Vice-Chairman)
Councillor Sally Beardsworth Councillor Derek Lawson MBE “ Paul Bell “ Stephen Legg “ Catherine Boardman “ Chris Lofts “ Wendy Brackenbury “ Arthur McCutcheon “ Julie Brookfield “ John McGhee “ Jim Broomfield “ David Mackintosh “ Michael Brown “ Allan Matthews “ Robin Brown “ Andy Mercer “ Mary Butcher “ Dennis Meredith “ Michael Clarke “ Ian Morris “ Adam Collyer “ Steve Osborne “ Elizabeth Coombe “ Bill Parker “ Gareth Eales “ Bhupendra Patel “ Brendan Glynane “ Suresh Patel “ Matt Golby “ Russell Roberts “ André Gonzalez De Savage “ Ron Sawbridge “ Christopher Groome “ Bob Scott “ James Hakewill “ Mick Scrimshaw “ Eileen Hales MBE “ Judy Shephard “ Mike Hallam “ Steve Slatter “ Jim Harker OBE “ Heather Smith “ Alan Hills “ Danielle Stone " Jill Hope “ Winston Strachan “ Dudley Hughes “ Michael Tye “ Sylvia Hughes “ Sarah Uldall “ Phil Larratt “ Allen Walker “ Graham Lawman “ Malcolm Waters
Also in attendance (for all or part of the meeting): Dr Akeem Ali – Director of Public Health & Wellbeing Paul Blantern, Chief Executive Matt Bowmer – Director of Finance Tony Ciaburro – Director Environment, Development & Transport Art Conaghan –Political Assistant to the Conservative Group Martyn Emberson, Chief Fire Officer Laurie Gould, Monitoring Officer Paul Hanson, Executive & Regulatory Manager Alex Hopkins, Director of Customers, Communities & Learning Michael Quinn, Political Assistant to the Liberal Democrat Group Jenny Rendall, Democracy Officer (Minutes) Ben Wesson, Political Assistant to the Labour Group
Honorary alderman John Bailey Honorary alderman Brian Binley Honorary alderman George Blackwell Honorary Alderman Marie Dickie Honorary Alderman Anne Goodman Honorary Alderman Gina Ogden Honorary alderman Priscilla Padley
And 8 members of the public.
69/13 Apologies for non-attendance:
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Sue Homer. Apologies were also received from the Independent Chairman of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults (SOVA) Board, Marie Seaton.
70/13 To approve and sign the minutes of the Meeting Held on Thursday 28 September 2013:
RESOLVED that: Council approved the minutes of the Council meeting held on Thursday 20 June 2013 subject to the following amendments: Item 57/13: to refer to the President of the Students Union at the University of Northampton as Miss Haviour Chen.
71/13 Notification of requests by members of the public to address the meeting
Item 7: Honorary Alderman Brian Binley, Mr Andrew Bodman, Mr Peter Deeley (Chairman of South Northants Action Group), Mr Nigel Galletly (Chairman of Chipping Warden & Edgcote Parish Council) and Councillor Rosie Herring (South Northamptonshire District Council)
Item 12(a): Mr Graham Croucher
72/13 Declarations of Interest by Councillors:
Item No. Councillor Type Nature
7 Jill Hope Personal Member of the Northampton Rail Users Group 12a Suresh Patel Personal He operates a family business in the St James area of Northampton 7 Danielle Stone Personal Acts as an adviser to the Association of Northamptonshire Supplementary Schools. 7 Winston Strachan Personal Member of the Northampton Rail Users Group
73/13 Chairman’s Announcements:
The Chairman made the following announcements:
Honorary Aldermen were welcomed to the meeting.
Councillors were encouraged to support a cake sale in aid of the Looked After Children Christmas appeal being organised over lunch by staff from Democratic Services. Councillors were also encouraged to buy raffle tickets to win a delicious chocolate cake.
Those who had donated the sum of £100 from their empowering councillors fund towards the organisation of a masked ball for looked after children were thanked. To date over £3,000 had been raised and it was not too late to contribute.
On Wednesday 20 November 2013, 7 new Young Leaders for the County were announced at a ceremony attended by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Jim Harker and Councillor Dudley Hughes. This marked the fourth year of this initiative which was the first of its kind in the country which was fully supported by the Northamptonshire County Council.
The out-going Young Leader, Shannon and her fellow young leaders were thanked for all of their support during their term of office which included taking an active part in consultation on the 2013/14. As a result of their support the sum of £100,000 was included in the Budget towards improving disability access on public transport. The debate they led in a meeting of Council on post 16 education options led to a scrutiny project to which they further contributed. Their final duty as young leaders was to organise and lead the elections for their replacements which resulted in over 20,000 young people voting from a choice of 20 candidates.
The Chairman then informed Council of the results of those elections as follows: Corby Young Leader: James Barker Daventry Young Leader: Chi Godwell East Northants Young Leader: Matt Hill Kettering Young Leader: Taylor King Northampton Young Leader and Leader of the Group: Matt Bradley South Northants Young Leader: Alistair Bassett Wellingborough Young Leader: Typhaine Thompson
The Chairman looked forward to working with Matt and his fellow young leaders during their term of office.
A reminder was given for the Chairman’s Civic Service on 8 December 2013. Photographs were also now available on the Chairman’s section of NCC’s website from her Garden Party held earlier that year.
At his final meeting of Council, the Chairman’s predecessor, Honorary Alderman John Bailey announced his intention to commission his own Chairman’s portrait. He duly awarded the commission to Daniel Kelly, an art student from the University of Northampton. Honorary Alderman Bailey was then invited to unveil the portrait to Council who stated his pleasure with it. He felt encouraging young people to undertake this type of work was a worthwhile endeavour and he thanked Daniel for his hard work.
(Councillor Phil Larratt arrived at 10.49am)
74/13 Petitions:
There were none.
75/13 The Association of Northamptonshire Supplementary Schools:
At the Chairman’s invitation, the Chairman of the Association of Northamptonshire Supplementary Schools, Mr Alaa Abouzanad gave a presentation of the work of the Association highlighting the following: The Associated had been set up to support ethnic minority pupils who had no other method for receiving additional support. During its time the Association had created a good professional teaching and learning environment in which to enhance life chances. Pupils attending had gained confidence and self-esteem and there had been greater integration within communities.
(Honorary Alderman John Bailey left the meeting at 10.50am)
In 2009 NCC had agreed to provide funding to enable the Association to assist children taking GCSE’s and ‘A’ Levels. This grant had enabled them to employ a part-time development officer and receive support from a Business Manager to help them develop a business plan. The Association had worked with local mainstream schools and had been offered space in which to hold their meetings, enabling a saving of £20,000 per year. As a direct result of the support they had received, they had secured a grant of £158,000 per year over 2 years from the Paul Hamblin Foundation to develop their role within mainstream education. They now employed a part-time development worker, bookkeeper and key development officers in Corby, Wellingborough and Kettering who would be based in schools and the local community to develop a funding stream for the Association. They would develop a number of people to monitor quality of the service and they had already begun developing a trading arm to the Association with a recent contract with Northamptonshire Police to deliver a translation service. Although they had lost 3 schools from some of the most vulnerable communities the new funding would enable them to provide additional support to those communities.
Councillors congratulated the Association on their progress which had been achieved in a relatively short space of time and which made them almost unrecognisable in terms of organisation from where they had been when the Council agreed to provide further support in 2009. They were also congratulated on being able to develop trading services at a time when many organisations struggled to survive.
RESOLVED that: Council noted the contents of the presentation made on behalf of the Association of Northamptonshire Supplementary Schools.
76//13 Opposition Priority Business:
At the Chairman’s invitation the following members of the public addressed Council:
Honorary Alderman Binley felt the motion quoted some incorrect information particularly with regard to the timetable for 2026. He felt 2 reasons for supporting HS2 were capacity and the ability of the current line to provide further services. Virgin Railways had recently had applications for services to Chester and Shrewsbury rejected because of a lack of capacity. Turning to the current line, he noted it was 100 years old and required a lot of maintenance which led to regular weekend closures. This situation would not change in his opinion until the new HS2 line came into operation in 2026. He then referred to the courage of railway pioneers like Brunel and Telford from which the current generation benefitted. He felt residents should have the courage to support something that would benefit generations to come.
Mr Andrew Bodman stated he had been a resident of the village of Bugbrooke for 34 years and was a member of the South Northants Action Group and Director of the HS2 Alliance. He felt the whole county would be affected by HS2 as there would be reductions in service along the West Coast Mainline and Midland Mainline which served those in the north of the county. The number of trains into London Euston would be reduced even though they were already over-crowded. He felt those living close to the proposed route would be affected by noise and dust during construction, even during the night. Acres of medieval parkland and at least 2 listed buildings would be lost to the route and the beautiful countryside would be blighted by overhead gantries and fencing supporting the line. He was unclear about the noise that would be created by the 18 trains per hour that were expected during peak times once the second phase of the line to Manchester was completed. HS2 trains would travel at a noticeably higher speed than HS1 trains in Kent. He felt the line would bring no benefit to Northamptonshire and urged the Council to join the 50 councils already supporting the 51M Group.
The Chairman of the South Northamptonshire Action Group (SNAG), Mr Peter Deeley, stated much had changed since he had last addressed Council and the benefits to the county in his opinion had been disproved. He failed to understand how a Government that cut public service spending could jusfify spending £50million on a single track system, particularly when in his opinion trains would no longer be effective in 100 years time. The cost of providing the line would be £300 per household – funding that could be better spent to benefit the county. He then noted M51 provided alternatives to HS2 which would reduce capacity issues on the West Coast Mainline at a tenth of the cost of HS2. Whilst the West Coast Mainline track still traversed the same land it was not 100 years old as it had been recently modernised. Supporting 51M would not cost the Council but it would send a clear signal to residents that it actively seeking alternatives to HS2 and there was a need to encourage the Government to seriously consider alternatives.
The Chairman of Chipping Warden & Edgcote Parish Council, Mr Nigel Galletly thanked NCC transport officers for their support. HS2 was designed to address the needs of moving people faster between London and Birmingham and cities further north. Apart from the Greater London economy only those cities linked to it would benefit from it. He noted only 2% of rail journeys in the UK were intercity and he felt a greater benefit would be moving long distance freight from the roads and on to the rail network. A recent survey had identified 79% of those surveyed had identified moving freight from road to rail as important. Rail freight did not require a straight line or 250mph speeds and current rail networks were still quicker than lorries and reduced CO2 emissions. Whilst he felt politicians did not consider railfreight to be adequately interesting to pursue it was nevertheless what the overall UK economy required. He also voiced concerns that HS2 would be outdated before it was completed.
South Northamptonshire District Councillor Rosie Herring stated her ward included many villages affected by HS2 and she urged NCC to consider joining 51M as it was becoming increasingly isolated in supporting HS2 which would not provide any benefits to the county. She noted NCC officers already attended 51M meetings which enabled them to develop expertise in this area. She queried how the Government could plan this major construction without an environmental impact assessment and voiced concerns that the costs were ‘spiralling’ out of control. Local Enterprise Partnerships would be expected to contribute to the cost of this infrastructure project thus diverting future growth funding from the county. She then listed various other councils who had joined 51M including some of Northamptonshire’s neighbours - Oxfordshire, Coventry City Council, and Buckinghamshire as well as the London Boroughs of Camden and Hillingdon.
The Chairman then invited Councillor Michael Brown to move the following motion:
“At its meeting on 23 June 2011 Council RESOLVED that it supported the principle of High Speed Rail in Britain, but only on certain conditions.
The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee published a report in October that was highly critical of the HS2 rail scheme. Network Rail projections show that HS2 will lead to significant reductions to rail services in Northamptonshire, and a KPMG report earlier this year predicted economic damage to several parts of the County.
The scheme would also blight rural communities near the route in Northamptonshire while providing no stations for use by local residents.
Other councils in the area, including Buckinghamshire County, Oxfordshire County, Warwickshire County and South Northants District have joined together in the 51M Group, which campaigns for a rethink on the proposals.
The 51M Group was set up because they do not believe that the business case stacks up and therefore cannot support the route suggested by the Government.
We do not believe that alternatives to achieve the desired transport capacity, regeneration and environmental benefits have been properly investigated by the Government. With predicted costs in excess of £50billion, we owe it to the nation as well as to the residents of Northamptonshire to ensure that the alternatives are fully explored.
The High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill is currently being debated by the House of Lords.
Therefore: THIS COUNCIL RESOLVES TO JOIN THE 51M GROUP AS A SIGNAL TO THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE HS2 SCHEME AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED IS NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE’S RESIDENTS.”
In moving the motion, Councillor Brown stated the motion was intended to be a-political and noted there was vigorous opposition to HS2 in many areas. He then referred to the debate in Council held in June 2011 at which time the Council made a very visible statement. He considered the decision at time to have been the most appropriate given the known facts. The facts as they were now known and rising costs encouraged him to change his view on HS2. The projected benefits were reducing and although the Prime Minister had made a request that the Chairman of HS2 Ltd, Sir David Higgins source means for reducing costs, he did not think it was possible.
Councillor Michael Brown then noted many senior politicians were now opposing the Scheme including Alistair Darling MP and the MP for South Northamptonshire, Andrea Leadsom. He also noted opposition from backbench MP’s, the Institute of Directors, the Adam Smith Institute, the Countryside Alliance, Tax Payers Alliance and the New Economic Foundation. Projections from Network rail indicated slower trains to and from Northampton and a 15% reduction in the timetable, particularly trains to Long Buckby. Trains to Kettering and Wellingborough were also expected to be reduced by 25%. He noted many trains were already overcrowded and many of those travelling to Birmingham were unlikely to use HS2.
Turning to the new railway station at Northampton he voiced concerns that slower and fewer trains would not encourage people to visit the town. He then noted a recent KPMG report which stated many towns in the county including Corby would suffer economically by £millions. The report which the Secretary of State had recently stated should be available in libraries was 56,000 pages long and many ambiguities had already been announced requiring it to be re-issued. There was no cost or legal barrier to joining the 51M Group but NCC would gain in strength by doing so.
The motion was seconded by Councillor Christopher Groome who felt there was a need to be clear about the discussion which was focussed on the current proposals, many facts of which were unknown in 2011. He then referred to the debate held in June 2011 at which Council stated it supported the infrastructure idea of HS2 but required a good business case and assurances of benefits to Northamptonshire. At a meeting attended earlier that week organised by the East Midlands Councils with Network Rail it had become very clear some of the key elements of the proposals had not been adequately considered even after spending £750million on producing a 56,000 page report for consideration.
Concerns were then voiced regarding passengers travelling into Euston and noted that bus and underground services from Euston were already inadequate during peak times. Passenger numbers on the West Coast Mainline as well as HS2 would only increase and all would journey into Euston and require moving forward within London. He was an advocate of infrastructure and had been leading a campaign to upgrade the East Midlands Line. He felt however that plans for those travelling from Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby to link with HS2 were inadequate.
Councillor Groome concluded by stating there was in his opinion a need to link with others voicing concerns about HS2 even though some of those concerns could be slightly different. He felt in this way issues around connectivity and capacity at Euston Station could be minimised and benefits to the county maximised.
Councillors commented as follows: It was noted HS2 was well supported when debated in Parliament the previous week and it was felt by some that the main concern should be how to ensure benefits for those affected by it, particularly in terms of compensation to those living closest to it. Capacity issues on the current network were noted and it was felt by some important to ensure a good, modern, efficient railway which ensured passengers did not have to endure over-crowded journeys. Concerns regarding costs were voiced and it was felt important to ensure Government was held to account and delivered the aims of HS2 within a reasonable cost. Some felt the expected report was an improvement on previous reports. It indicated there would be reduced journey times between London and Northampton as well as additional trains within the service. Issues on the Midland Mainline would also be reviewed. Concerns were raised that upgrading the current track and eliminating ‘bottle-necks’ within it would not address all of the issues with the current lines. Concerns were further raised that the campaigning undertaken by the 51M Group would cause the Council money and create delays in the project. It was noted that South Northamptonshire District Council had already budgeted for legal challenges as part of this group. Reference was made to the county’s refusal to allow the original line through Northampton which led to a delay in benefits from it. Concerns were then raised that opposing HS2 would lead to similar delays in benefits. The benefits in terms of creating jobs and relieving the pressure on the West Coast Mainline were noted. It was suggested the original view from June 2011 that the principal of high speed rail in Britain should be supported but only on certain conditions was still relevant. It was further suggested the Council work with local MP’s to ensure the best outcomes for the people of Northamptonshire. It was felt by some that the project should be supported in order to benefit future generations of the county. Some felt the debate on HS2 had moved forward from the subject of this motion and there was now a need to work with local politicians to ensure good compensation was offered to those immediately affected by the building of the line. It was noted negotiations in this area had begun. Some considered monitoring the cost of the project to be the next step as the debate had also moved beyond the principle of high speed rail in the country.
(Honorary Alderman Gina Ogden left the meeting at 11.45am)
Concerns were raised that the effects on the north of the county had not been adequately considered in the Government report and it was felt the issue should be considered from a countywide point of view and not just those geographically closest to the line. Concerns were raised that moving freight from road to rail would result in a loss of jobs within the logistics industry. This in turn would affect towns in the north of the county, particularly Wellingborough which was a logistics centre. Some felt upgrading the existing line would create 14 years disruption but the provision of HS2 would provide additional capacity enabling existing lines to continue, particularly as there would be investment into these lines as part of the HS2 project. The proposed improvements were expected to be announced the following year. It was noted some rail facilities based in Wellingborough were already working on contracts relating to HS2, thus providing and ensuring employment in the county. Some felt the existing line through Northampton could only provide the service required of its passengers with the investment promised through the HS2 project.
In reply, Councillor Michael Brown stressed that his political party was not against high speed rail but he did feel the project would not benefit Northamptonshire. The motion was concerned with local and not national issues and there would be no cost to joining 51M and it would not commit NCC to any legal action. He felt the proposal matched concerns of many of Northamptonshire’s neighbours and whilst Government would go ahead with a project it wanted to bring to fruition, it was the duty of local councils to fight for its residents’ rights.
RESOLVED that: Upon a recorded vote of 49 against and 4 in favour with 3 abstentions and 1 absence the motion was rejected.
77/13 Business items (including Budget & Policy Framework items, Appointments & Annual Reports):
(a) Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults (SOVA) Annual Report 2012-2013:
At the Chairman’s invitation, Councillor Suresh Patel proposed the report (copies of which had been previously circulated) stating safeguarding was the ‘cornerstone’ of the Council’s work not just with children but also vulnerable adults and much had been undertaken to keep vulnerable adults safe.
The Chairman then invited Assistant Director – Quality & Contracting, Cathi Sacco to identify some key parts of the report as follows: The Board represented a partnership agreement between 11 different partners. This report set out the national and local context, the national context being an issue of safeguarding heightened by reviews such as the recent review in Mid- Staffordshire. Safeguarding was taken very seriously with a ‘no secrets’ policy followed. During the past year the SOVA Board had been strengthened with professionals challenging each other to a much greater extent than previously. In recognition of the new responsibility under the Social Care Bill for adults leaving prison, a representative had recently joined the Board from Onley Prison. The report included details of the achievements of the various groups operating below Board level as well as contributions from partners in their own words. In common with the rest of the country, the number of safeguarding alerts was increasing each year. The number of notifications had increased by 18% in the previous year and the notifications did reflect the demographics of Northamptonshire. Within the categories of those suffering significant abuse, 25% were categorised as having mental health problems, 22% with mental health disabilities and 19% with physical disabilities. Many referrals were unclassified. Primary referrals usually came from people in their own homes although the Board did monitor institutional abuse. Those making referrals tended to be registered providers and much had been undertaken to ensure service providers were aware of issues and new thresholds had been identified that year to enable better signposting of alerts. 40% of referrals had ‘no further action’ as an outcome. The Board would become a statutory function when the Care and Support Bill received its final assent.
The report was seconded by Councillor Robin Brown.
In answer to queries on the report the following was confirmed: The representatives of the Board were listed on page 75 of the report. The voluntary sector was represented via Healthwatch Northamptonshire and details of the way in which they liaised with other members of the voluntary sector could be provided in response to a written question following the meeting. Questions relating to funding could be answered to a written response following the meeting. Information relating to the geographical breakdown of where alerts originated would be provided following the meeting. As noted in Section 7 of the Annual Report, there had been 2 serious case reviews in the county. NCC had also undertaken a pilot scheme to employ a Liaison Officer during these reviews. Housing issues were covered in the Board through the representatives from District and Borough Councils. The local Clinical Commissioning Groups were also represented as those bodies responsible for ensuring GP’s provided a good service. Response to a request for additional funding from minor partners to ensure the Board was adequately resourced had been well received.
(Honorary Alderman George Blackwell left the meeting at 12.10pm)
In reply Councillor Patel thanked the Assistant Director and councillors for their contributions and encouraged councillors to make further queries in writing.
RESOLVED that: 1) Council noted the Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults (SOVA) Annual Report 2012-2013; 2) Queries relating to the way in which Healthwatch Northamptonshire liaised with the voluntary sector would be submitted following the meeting to receive a written request; 3) Queries relating to funding would be submitted following the meeting to receive a written request; and 4) Information relating to the geographical locations of alerts would be provided following the meeting.
(b) Changes to the Constitution:
At the Chairman’s invitation, Councillor Heather Smith proposed the report (copies of which had been previously circulated) stating the Councillor Services & Governance Working Group had discussed the changes which related to amendments to Part 3 of the Constitution (relating to the Council’s powers with regard to schools) as well a minor amendment to the Financial Procedure Rules. Details of these could be found in Part 4 of the report.
The report was seconded by Councillor Allen Walker.
In answer to queries on the report the following was confirmed: Virements between budget lines were regularly undertaken, particularly as responsibilities for services changed directorates. The change in the Financial Procedure Rules was actually a change in the text of the Constitution which clarified existing rules. Councils particularly district and borough councils which were responsible for elections avoided closing a school for this purpose wherever possible.
RESOLVED that: Council agreed: 1) the constitutional changes as set out in Section 4 of the report; and 2) that these changes would take effect immediately and that the Monitoring Officer be delegated authority to make these amendments, any associated conforming amendments and to republish the Constitution.
(c) Appointment of the Independent Panel for Councillors’ Allowances:
At the Chairman’s invitation, Councillor Heather Smith proposed the report (copies of which had been previously circulated) stating the details of those proposed could be found in Section 3.4 of the report. The Local Government Act 1972 required all authorities to appoint a panel and have an individual review at least once every 4 years. The process for recruitment was agreed by the Councillor Services & Governance Working Group in March 2013 as the term of appointment for the current members would expire in September 2013.
The report was seconded by Councillor Allen Walker.
RESOLVED that: Council confirmed the following appointments to the Independent Panel for Councillors’ Allowances: Mr Ron Dean Mr Jim Gammans Miss Cara Manchester Mr Alan Haynes
(d) Quarterly Treasury Management Report 2011-2012 & 2012-2013:
At the Chairman’s invitation, Councillor Bill Parker proposed the report (copies of which had been previously circulated) who stated the report demonstrated an effective treasury management process which was achieving good results despite ongoing economic difficulties. He also noted the new Minimum Revenue Provision as set out in Section 12 of the report, which was originally introduced in 2008 had enabled some savings to be made.
The report was seconded by Councillor Graham Lawman who congratulated the Treasury Team for their successful management of the treasury. He also thanked them for organising a Treasury Management workshop for councillors.
In reply Councillor Parker confirmed the long term core cash investment to Standard Chartered was in fact a 2 month investment. He considered the report to be very positive.
RESOLVED that: Council: 1) Noted the Treasury Management Report, Mid Year Report 2013-14; and 2) Approved the following amendment to the Treasury Management Strategy Statement: Change how Revenue Funded from Capital Under Statute (REFCUS) is treated for MRP purposes in practice and to include a paragraph in the TMSS to this effect.
78/13 Questions, if any to the Chairman of the Audit Committee relating to the work of the Audit Committee since the last ordinary meeting:
The Chairman invited the Independent Chairman of the Audit Committee, Mr David Watson to address Council who stated the following: For the benefit of new councillors he explained the yearly cycle for the Audit Committee which started in February when the Committee planned its work based on the year-end audit from external auditors and agreed plans for internal audit. The meeting in May received details of the work undertaken to test systems and at the end of June statutory accounts were received. The report to the September meeting dealt with issues arising from the internal audit and signing of the financial statements for the year. The November meeting, reviewed the year’s work. Internal quarterly reports were received detailing the work undertaken by internal audit and any issues arising from that. The Committee also received details relating to the Council’s risk strategy and any issues relating to the accounts. The Committee could request cabinet members and relevant officers attend meetings. The Independent Chairman held private meetings with the external auditors during the year to ensure any issues could be addressed at the earliest opportunity. He also met with the Head of Internal Audit and Head of Finance. Many improvements had been made in the past 2 or 3 years to ensure the external audit was as smooth a process as possible. This had resulted in a ‘cleaner’ audit of the previous year’s accounts with very few points raised by the external auditors. The external auditors had queried in detail some property valuation issues and it had been explained they had been based on judgement rather than significant changes in accounts. All statutory requirements had been met and the Accounts were signed off in line with the deadline of 30 September 2013. The Director of Finance and his team were thanked for all of their efforts to improve the quality of accounting in recent years.
In answer to queries, the following was confirmed: Although the minutes from 27 June 2013 noted gilt yields were currently high, it should in fact have noted the value of gilts were high and the yield was therefore low. The Committee’s concerns regarding a shortage of school places had not been referred to the Customers, Communities & Learning Scrutiny Committee as the Chairman of that scrutiny committee regularly monitored issues arising out of the Audit Committee. Chairmen of scrutiny committees responsible for finance and education confirmed the issue of school places was on their workplans for the year. The Corporate Management Team had revised the processes for debt management. Whilst some of the Council’s debt was unacceptable it was difficult to recover personal debt created by residents who had since passed away. There was a line in the balance sheet for the previous year’s accounts relating to debt of £145,000. Although this had been raised as an issue, officers were still unable to explain it. It could possibly have been created through the way in which budget overspends were recorded and it was a relatively small sum for a budget the size of the Council’s. The audit closedown was planned to take place at an earlier point in the current year. The Independent Chairman’s unease at signing off accounts at the last minute had been raised with the external auditors who should be able to provide their final reports during August. Discussions were also being held with officers in the Pension Team to ensure the paperwork relating to the Pension Fund was also signed in adequate time. The whole strategy for debt recovery had been re-written and should provide improvements in the current year’s accounts.
The Independent Chairman of the Audit Committee concluded by thanking all members of the Audit Committee for their support, particularly to those for whom it had been a huge learning exercise joining as they had part way through the financial year.
RESOLVED that: Council noted the information provided by the Independent Chairman of the Audit Committee.
(Honorary Aldermen Anne Goodman and Priscilla Padley left the meeting at this point)
79/13 Cabinet Business:
At the Chairman’s invitation, the Leader of the Council, Councillor Jim Harker introduced his report (copies of which had been previously circulated) highlighting the following: Encouraging discussions had been held with the Children’s Commissioner for England who felt the Council had an excellent partner in the form of Christine Davies who had joined the Improvement Board as Chairman. The importance of Project Alpha was stressed, particularly at a time when the elderly in the county was expected to grow by 50% by 2025. Growth in the national economy was promising and the work with the Northamptonshire Enterprise Partnership (NEP) to attract investment to the county was recognised. This included successful advertising campaigns at stations and a presentation to 170 potential investment interests in the county held at the University the previous month had resulted in a London bakery relocating to Corby. A logistics business had also decided to cease operations in Suffolk and move to Northamptonshire. The recent launch of the Enterprise Hub was a good example of the successful partnership with Northampton University. Strategic transport infrastructure projects included re-surfacing as part of the Corby Link Road Project, the work around Northampton Station and widening of the A14. He felt the new section of the Corby Orbital Road would opening up additional areas for housing in Corby and NEP and the South East Midlands Local Enterprise Partnership had sourced the funding for the opening of that section of the road.
Answers to written questions were also provided at the meeting (appendix 2 to the minutes) and supplementary questions to these were answered as follows: It was impossible to provide reports on each of the outside bodies to which the Council sent representatives as they number more than 800. Many representatives were appointed because it was an area in which they held an interest either geographically or thematically. He reassured councillors that the current system worked well but issues could be raised to the relevant director. There did not appear to be any current campaigns to remain with or leave the European Union (EU). The real issue was considered to be the need to ensure a realistic deal with the EU was negotiated for real opportunities to be presented. The Council’s payroll system was 99.9% accurate, above the industry standard. The Cabinet Member for Finance would investigate any issues forwarded to him in writing. Significant investment had been made in ensuring training to staff in the Children, Young People and Education Directorate enabled the Council to address inadequacies. The Chairman of the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board Northamptonshire determined when serious case reviews were published. Concerns regarding the possibility of building a primary school in the Southfields area of Northampton could be discussed with the Assistant Cabinet Member for Schools & Skills, Councillor Russell Roberts outside of the meeting. Councillors were encouraged to familiarise themselves with the County’s Healthy Start Programme which incorporated opportunities for residents to receive additional vitamins where required. Public Health England and the Chief Medical Officer of England were responsible to providing nationwide services and any reviews should always consider the disadvantages of providing supplements when considering provision of a nationwide service to ensure healthy people did not become unhealthy as a result of provision of something they did not require. The number of looked after children likely to be in temporary accommodation over Christmas would not be known until Christmas. Any issues could be brought to the Corporate Parenting Board or relevant scrutiny committee. The Cabinet member for Transport, Highways & the Environment was happy to discuss any new data relating to the Buckton Fields Development that was presented. The Cabinet Member for Adult Care Services was confident the Council was meeting all its obligations to vulnerable residents of Northamptonshire. Spot checks were conducted on providers of adult care including those directly provided by the Council.
Verbal questions to the Leader of the Council and Cabinet were then answered as follows: Although the Council was not responsible for providing a bridge on Geddington Road it was disappointed that recent negotiations had not led to agreement and would continue to campaign for this provision as the authority responsible for maintaining the economy and keeping traffic moving through the county. As corporate parents all councillors had a responsibility to understand issues within Children’s Services and how they could be improved.
RESOLVED that: Council noted: 1) the report by the Leader of the Council; and 2) responses provided to written and verbal questions on the work of Cabinet.
80/13 Overview & Scrutiny Business:
At the Chairman’s invitation, the Chairman of the Scrutiny Management Committee, Councillor Judy Shephard proposed the report (copies of which had been previously circulated) encouraging all councillors to attend the budget workshop being held on 18 December 2013 as this would enable them to understand the scrutiny process.
The report was seconded by Councillor James Hakewill who felt that greater attendance at scrutiny sessions would provide councillors with a greater knowledge of the services and processes of the Council including where best to raise issues. He also felt it was easier to influence decisions through scrutiny than at the relevant meeting where a decision was being made.
Councillors also noted the following: A request for the SOVA Board Annual Report to be presented to the Health Adult Care and Wellbeing Committee prior to Council. Councillors were also encouraged to visit elderly and nursing homes as well as schools with a view to protecting the most vulnerable members of society. Issues could then be reported to the appropriate bodies such as the Care Quality Commission. Scrutiny Committee work programmes were living documents that were reviewed in line with any new developments within a committee’s area of concern. Concerns regarding Section 106 funding had been noted by the Environment, Development & Transport Scrutiny Committee, particularly in relation to the provision of new schools at a time when there was a shortage of school places and many schools compensating with provision of temporary classrooms. Improving Children’s Services would be a huge task and it was felt important for councillors to attend the sessions scrutinising the budget to ensure this area was adequately funded to achieve those improvements with as little impact on other areas of the Council’s services as possible.
In reply Councillor Shephard re-iterated the need to attend the sessions to scrutinise the budget and thanked her fellow councillors for all of their support throughout the year.
RESOLVED that: Council noted the Report from the Chairman of the Scrutiny Management Committee.
81/13 Motions Submitted by Councillors Under Rule 13.1:
(a) Motion submitted by Councillor Jill Hope:
The Chairman invited Mr Graham Croucher to address Council who felt the horrendous traffic issues in the St James area of Northampton were well documented. He felt they were due to piecemeal planning and the siting in the area of 2 of the biggest sports clubs in the town. He then referred to blocked drains, poor road maintenance and parking issue, stating he felt the roads would not be fit for purpose in the future as additional traffic was expected from the enterprise zone. He then referred to the Air Quality Management Strategy and Local Transport Plan which both committed to engage with the public. Air quality in St James and particularly Weedon Road were frequently exceeded and local business was suffering as people were unable to enter the area when traffic was so often slow. He had written detailed letter to the Leaders of NCC and Northampton Borough Council, receiving 1 response which addressed only 1 or 2 of the issues and neither responded to requests to meet with residents to discuss possible solutions.
The issue in his opinion was not political as it affected everyone in the town and meaningful discussions with the Council to identify solutions would benefit the whole town. He was not against development but felt there was an urgent need to discuss the issues.
The Chairman then invited Councillor Jill Hope to move the following motion:
“This County Council notes with concern the serious traffic and highways problems in St. James, Northampton including but not exclusively; poor road maintenance, blocked drains, inadequate parking provision and horrendous traffic congestion, especially on days when Saints and Cobblers are both playing at home. In addition, unchecked and piecemeal development with no extra infrastructure provision is seriously damaging the daily lives of business and residents in St. James, Northampton, in terms of health and financial cost.
This County Council also notes with concern that both the County and Borough Councils have designated sections of St. James and Weedon Roads as Air Quality management areas and have formal remedial measures that are not being implemented.
This County Council notes also that communication and consultation with residents has been virtually non-existent and formal correspondence has been ignored, therefore this County Council will as a matter of urgency, meet formally with Councillors, residents and business representatives from St. James to discuss and implement solutions to the well documented issues in this area. These discussions will form the basis of a formal plan to be finalised within six months and implemented within 18 months.”
In proposing the motion, Councillor Hope referred to problems regularly reported to May Gurney WSP by residents and councillors which were ignored. She therefore felt her only course of action was to raise the issue at Council. She felt parking schemes were inadequate partly because of the siting of 2 successful sporting clubs in the area. She understood their need to develop their sites but there should be consideration of the impact on the local community of doing so. A recent test undertaken at a time when there were matches at both clubs resulted in a journey between the 2 sites taking 10 minutes. She then asked Council to consider the impact of that on an emergency vehicle such as an ambulance. She concluded by urging Council to discuss the issues with local residents and identify proposals within 6 months that would be implemented within 18 months.
The motion was seconded by Councillor Gareth Eales.
Councillors commented as follows: Reference was made to partnership work with local residents which had led to the creation of a working group concerned with traffic management. This working group included local politicians and representatives from both sporting clubs in the area as well as other interested parties in the area. It was also noted regular communication between residents and highways officers had led to many improvements including prohibiting lorries parking in the ‘Scottish’ Streets, new road markings, additional car parking signs. Highways officers had also attended meetings of the St James Residents Association. It was suggested the issue of the siting of the 2 sports clubs in the area created issues that were not easy to solve but could be through regular discussions with highways officers. A recent survey of households in the area had identified the current parking arrangements as inadequate and there was an urgent need to change them. Air quality issues in the area were the responsibility of Northampton Borough Council. It was suggested councillors and interested parties should consult with the Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and The Environment. It was noted NCC had begun a review of all parking permits and parking areas of Northampton in February 2012 which included St James. An annual weighting review of parking had also been commenced in November 2012 aimed at addressing the backlog in issuing parking permits. This also included St James and the changes were currently being implemented. Whilst issues relating to drains could be referred to the Street Doctor the Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and The Environment was not aware of any breaches. Issues of congestion were considered by some to be a common issue for any area of any town that included a large venue such as a sporting club. It was suggested a review of the practices of other towns could be conducted to see if anything could be learned from their experiences. It was noted officers worked with colleagues in Northampton Borough Council as well as the 2 sporting venues based in the area to alleviate issues wherever possible. It was noted this part of Northampton had been badly flooded in 1988 and blocked drains would do nothing to alleviate any future flood. It was further noted that this area was under continual review as a gateway to Northampton. There were many plans for the area including an expansion by Church’s Shoes which was expected to created 150 new jobs. Partnership work was also undertaken with the local Police and Crime Commissioner and funding had been provided wherever possible for traffic management. It was also noted Northampton Borough Council was reviving highways impact assessments with NCC particularly in identifying how best to manage the impact from the joining up of St James Mill Road which it was hoped would relieve parking on both the Harlestone and Weedon Roads. Residents it was noted had approached some councillors as well as the St James Residents Association because they felt they had not been properly engaged in discussions. It was also noted that not all of the relevant divisional councillors had been invited to traffic management meetings.
In reply Councillor Hope stated the motion simply requested a discussion to identify a formal plan. She also felt the traffic management of match days appeared to be more concerned with moving traffic through to the motorway with little consideration to residents. She acknowledged good consultation undertaken in the past but felt this had lapsed with Street Doctor ignoring reports. Whilst she considered future plans to be wonderful for the area, there was also a need to discuss them with residents.
RESOLVED that: Upon the vote the motion was rejected.
(b) Motion submitted by Councillor Sally Beardsworth:
At the Chairman’s invitation, Councillor Sally Beardsworth moved the following motion:
“This Council notes that Kingsthorpe Village is served by small roads that are appropriate for access, but not as significant commuter routes.
This Council also notes that the Cock Hotel Junction continues to cause frustrations to motorists, leading many each morning to “cut through” Kingsthorpe Village, often at high speed.
Against this background, the Council further notes plans for a new, substantial supermarket to be built on the nearby Grose’s Garage site.
Council therefore resolves to examine the possibility of making changes to the road layout in Kingsthorpe Village. The scope of the examination, which should include full consultation with residents, should be broad enough to take in options from mild traffic calming to the complete closure of the roads running either side of the green – making it impossible to drive from one end of the village to the other, eliminating its function as a cut through entirely.
Council resolves that this exploration and consultation should be progressed immediately, with recommendations available to Council no later than March of 2014.”
In moving the motion, Councillor Beardsworth stated residents of Kingsthorpe Village had suffered appalling traffic issues for many years as local roads were not designed to manage current traffic levels and had become ‘rat runs’ for those travelling between Welford Road and Mill Lane. There were 2 nurseries and a primary school in this dangerous area and some of the lighting in the village was not working because no-one could decide if it was heritage lighting. In some areas there was no pavement and where there was pavement the road was so narrow that cars parked on it. The motion was asking Council to discuss the issues with residents to try and resolve the issue, particularly as the Buckton Fields Development would only increase the issues. She also noted a new supermarket would also increase the traffic and whilst there had been no fatal accidents to date, she was concerned for the future safety of children in the area.
The motion was seconded by Councillor Sarah Uldall.
Councillors commented as follows: It was noted an application to increase the size of Kingsthorpe Village Primary School which would have increased traffic in the area had been rejected by the Council’s Development Control Committee earlier that month. The application for a new supermarket in the area had been granted by the Northampton Borough Council and NCC was therefore unable to influence this. Progress had been slow in the area. A new layout for the road was drawn up in 2006 and a Kingsthorpe Village Road Closure Feasibility Study undertaken in 2011. Whilst there was no lack of consensus for improvements there were resource issues as the Highways Authority did not regard this area to be a priority. The Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and The Environment was hopeful resolutions would be identified. Concerns were raised that the area was treated as a ‘rat run’ by traffic. The roads were inadequate and a request to undertake a survey with residents was requested. Some felt this issue should have been referred to the relevant cabinet member and officers to resolve as it was a local issue and Council was concerned with countywide issues. It was noted a lot of investment had been made in the Kingsthorpe area of Northampton and there were many other areas in the county with similar issues.
In reply Councillor Beardsworth stated she had brought the motion forward in support of one of the oldest parts of Northampton. Residents were frustrated with the traffic issues they were experiencing and she voiced concerns that it was sometimes difficult to raise issues as a member of the opposition.
RESOLVED that: Upon the vote the motion was rejected.
(c) Motion submitted by Councillor Sarah Uldall:
The Chairman invited Councillor Sarah Uldall to move the following motion:
“Council notes that St. Andrew’s Road is a residential street, whose front doors open immediately onto the road. Council also notes that the demographics of the area includes a high number of young families.
Council recognises that St. Andrew’s Road is part of Northampton’s strategic road network (as part of the A5095), but recognises also that it runs parallel to the Barrack Road, which is far better equipped to take heavy volumes of traffic.
Council further recognises that a number of streets lead down to St. Andrew’s Road from the Semilong Road on a steep incline.
Council therefore recognises that St. Andrew’s Road is potentially extremely dangerous for local residents, particularly children and cyclists – and it is further noted these residents have concerns over noise pollution.
It is therefore resolved that a full consultation with residents should be set in motion, examining the possibility of introducing a 20mph speed restriction, as we see on other major routes – with St. Georges Avenue being a good example. Findings and recommendations should be available to Council no later than March of 2014.”
In moving the motion Councillor Uldall stated residents in St Andrews Road, Semilong were subject to increasing volumes of traffic as this particular road was part of the A509 which itself was part of the strategic network of the county. She was therefore proposing consultation with residents with a view of introducing a 20mph speed limit.
The motion was seconded by Councillor Dennis Meredith who stated from his regular use of the road, he understood how dangerous it was, particularly as it had many side roads and a number of businesses were located in the area. His main concern was for cyclists of which he saw many using this road. He then noted recent figures indicated the number of cyclists being killed on roads was increasing at an alarming rate.
Councillors commented as follows: It was noted this was a local issue that could have been brought to the attention of officers and/or the Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and The Environment, particularly as correspondence in this way often produced quicker results. It was noted St Andrews Road was regularly inspected by the Highways Team and was not deemed as requiring emergency repairs. As a major route through Northampton it carried a high volume of traffic but as an emergency route, speed restrictions could not be applied. There were no plans therefore to alter its current 30mph speed limit or change the layout of this route into Northampton. Some felt this road was no different to many others in Northampton or the county. It was suggested a more strategic approach was required and time should be devoted to identifying how best to provide a north-west bypass and it was felt a strategic approach would enable Council to encourage development in an area that would enable the delivery of that bypass. Some felt this motion had been brought to Council because of a frustration in a lack of improvements to this road. It was therefore suggested the processes that enabled opposition members to bring issues to officers and cabinet members be reviewed. It was suggested by some that this issue was part of a wider one; being the provision of safe speed limits around the county in rural areas. It was noted new developments were often built with 20mph speed limits from the outset and it was suggested the issue of St Andrews Road be considered with this in mind. It was noted that the issues noted in this and the previous 2 motions could perhaps be more appropriately addressed through a motion based on the wider issue of strategic links, particularly as developments such as the Enterprise Zone would increase traffic into the area. The Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and The Environment was therefore asked to consider these issues when discussing strategic links. Some voiced concerns that devoting funding to providing resources designed at slowing traffic such as 20mph speed limits on particular roads could divert funding more urgently required by other services provided by the Council such as Children’s Services. It was suggested therefore that when discussing issues with the Highways’ Community Liaison Officers that councillors consider alternative funding for the resolutions they suggest.
In reply Councillor Uldall voiced frustration when the Highways Department refused to fund solutions.
RESOLVED that: Upon the vote the motion was rejected.
(d) Motion submitted by Councillor John McGhee:
At the Chairman’s invitation Councillor John McGhee moved the following motion:
“This Council welcomes the UK-wide campaign to end ‘legal loan sharking.’
This Council believes that the lack of access to affordable credit is socially and economically damaging. Unaffordable credit is causing a myriad of unwanted effects such as poorer diets, colder homes, rent, council tax and utility arrears, depression (which impacts on job seeking behaviour) and poor health.
This Council further believes that unaffordable credit is extracting wealth from the most deprived communities.
This Council notes it is the responsibility of all levels of government to try to ensure affordable credit for all, and therefore pledges to use best practice to promote financial literacy and affordable lending in Northamptonshire. This will help to ensure that wealth stays in the local economy. This Council also pledges to promote community based organisations offering access to affordable credit, like the Northamptonshire Credit Union, and promoting saving in our county.
This Council asks the Chief Executive to write to the relevant Secretary of State saying this Council calls on the government to introduce caps on the total lending rates that can be charged for providing credit. In addition, this Council calls on central government to give local authorities the power to veto licences for high street credit agencies where they could have negative economic or social impacts on communities.”
In moving the motion Councillor McGhee highlighted the following: National campaigns to cap lending companies were noted as capping was a method tried and tested by other countries on payday lenders. Those with the least money were most affected by this issue and he stated a wish for additional funding to be made available to credit unions to increase their membership and assistance to local people. He also wanted to see advertising banned, particularly that aimed at young people and families and noted the Council’s ban on access to its website by payday loan companies. Council staff were also feeling forced to take out payday loans. The amount of cash borrowed nationally in this way had tripled with the average sum borrowed from one company in particular the week before payday was believed to be £660; an indication of a growing problem. Fewer than 20% of the 9million people trapped nationally in severe debt received any help to break this cycle. A recent survey had identified 8.8million people were over- indebted and 17% of that group claimed to receive no advice at all on how to deal with their debt. In these circumstances he was not surprised that many people turned to a creditor for assistance. 21% of those classed as over-indebted (1.8million) in the country did not realise they had a problem and a further 11% were unconcerned about debt. Many people sought help when it was too late and in their struggle to get out of debt, turned to foodbanks. Although a payday loans cap was a good move much more action was needed in order to ensure income loans were not taken.
The motion was seconded by Councillor Eileen Hales who referred to credit unions and the importance of their promotion within the county, particularly as it was one way of teaching young people how to budget and stay out of debt. Credit unions were an affordable method for accessing loans and many arranged collections in local areas with regular opening hours. Many large organisations also offered credit unions for staff such as the Post Office and Police. She noted the Northamptonshire Healthcare Foundation Trust was also encouraging staff to join one. She felt provision of a collection point in the front of County Hall would also encourage this good practice.
At the Chairman’s invitation Councillor Jim Harker then moved the following amendment to the motion:
To remove the final paragraph and replace it with the following:
“This Council asks the Chief Executive to write to the relevant Secretary of State to congratulate the Government on amending the Banking Reform Bill to include a cap on ‘payday’ loans and request that local authorities are given the power to veto licences high street credit agencies where they could have negative economic or social impacts on communities.”
In moving the amendment, Councillor Harker referred to payday loans as a serious concern. It was the most vulnerable who accessed them when they lost a job or were struggling to free themselves of debt and he congratulated Councillor McGhee on bringing this issue to Council’s attention. His amendment was based on developments within the last few days when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced amendments to the banking reform bill that would establish a cap on payday loans. He felt the rest of the motion was very relevant and deserved support and he supported a request that Central Government gave local authorities the power to veto licences for high street credit agencies where they could have a negative economic or social impact on a community.
The amendment was seconded by Councillor Paul Bell who noted the work of libraries alongside Citizens Advice Bureaux (CABs) to block payday loan companies from advertising on their computers. They were currently blocking access to approximately 70 payday loan sites as well as access to banks and credit unions in a bid to ensure none ‘fell through the net’. Staff used the Benefits, Money Advice and Consumer Sections of the e- library and the emergency pages on the NCC website to assist people. Libraries in Burton Latimer and Weston Favell were also hosting credit union sessions and all staff were being trained to a consistent level to provide low level debt advice. This in turn freed up the time of CABs and Welfare Rights officers to dela with more complex issues. The training would be to a high standard involved 2 whole days followed by 2 days shadowing a fully trained benefits adviser. CAB were also now providing a call-back advice service in libraries and Trading Standards were using monitoring information to identify where the issues where and the lending companies assisting to create them.
In answer to a query from the Chairman, Councillor John McGhee confirmed he would accept the amendment on the basis that the word ‘Government’ in the second line be altered to state ‘Parliament’ in recognition of the cross-party support the Bill had received.
Councillor Harker accepted this further amendment and the motion as amended was debated as follows: Payday loan companies were described by some as despicable as they often encouraged those repaying small loans to take further loans which were often for increased amounts. The growth in payday loan companies had been huge and the number of people falling into debt had steadily increased from 6,500 during 2009 to 17,000 in 2011 and 22,000 in current times. Government was congratulated on its assistance to residents through the amendments to the Bill as well as in reducing tax rates. It was noted many of those borrowing money ended up owing more than they had actually borrowed in the first place because of the rates of interest charged. It was also suggested there was some genuine ignorance around interest rates and it was suggested the curriculum in schools needed to include more in this area to ensure future adults had a better understanding of the issues. It was also hoped that a veto on licences would encourage loan companies to improve their lending practices. Some felt credit unions were the best possible way forward.
(Councillor Heather Smith left the meeting at 3.30pm)
The Country’s serious debt issue was noted and it was felt austerity measures had exacerbated the issue. It was further noted that in 2012 3.6million households were spending more than a quarter of their disposable income on debt repayment with massive rates of interest even on short term loans increasing the issue. Even the Archbiship of Canterbury had noted the need to compete against payday loan companies to the extent of putting them out of business and it was felt greater use of credit unions could do this. It was suggested information on credit unions should be available in schools to educate the children and parents. As members had to safe for a period of time before applying for a loan and whilst repaying a loan it would also encourage the credit union as a savings scheme. It was noted a scrutiny report had been presented to Council in March 2011 which made various recommendations. It highlighted the issue of legal payday loan providers and the misery they assisted to create. It also highlighted illegal lenders who used intimidation and threats to obtain payments. They in particular preyed on deprived areas often obtaining clients through word of mouth. It was suggested financial literacy could be promoted in schools through the free schemes from the Personal Finance & Education Group (PFEG). Concerns were raised that high street agencies were only part of the problem and many national organisations could take their operation abroad.
RESOLVED that: Upon a unanimous vote the motion as amended was accepted:
(e) Motion submitted by Councillor Danielle Stone:
The Chairman invited Councillor Danielle Stone to move the following motion:
“This Council recognises that children need a variety of play opportunities from simple playground activities to organised team sports to stay fit and healthy. Yet many children do not have access to safe play facilities. All the schools in our county have such facilities, which belong to our communities because we paid for them from the public purse. However, it has become too expensive for many community groups to rent the facilities.
We need a mechanism for supporting schools and our communities at large for making the best use of existing play opportunities.
Therefore, we ask that this Council develops a strategy for the after school/ weekend and holiday use of school play space with partners such as the Northampton Leisure Trust.”
(Councillors Bob Patel & Malcolm Waters left the meeting at 3.35pm)
In moving the motion, Councillor Stone stated she was seeking practical steps to assist children to access suitable play areas. This was good for wellbeing and she noted a recent research paper identified 50% of 10-15 year olds suffered undue stress and sleep disorders. She had also visited a hospital outreach team who had reported 80% of those children they looked after in previous years had physical ailments and 20% had mental health ailments. These percentages however had now reversed and national statistics were identifying a huge increase in the number of children suffering from rickets associated with a lack of sunlight. All of this in her opinion identified an urgent need to provide greater access to play facilities. Her use of the word ‘play’ and not ‘sport’ was intentional as play came in all forms and it was for parents and children in their communities to decide which play was suitable for them.
Continuing Councillor Stone felt play should be local and accessible and many had asked her why they could not use local school facilities. Use of school facilities was possible in her view as demonstrated by the Association of Supplementary Schools who had negotiated use of 4 secondary school sites and a primary school (equivalent to £27,000 resource to them). She felt the Council did not provide the mechanism to do this and the motion was seeking a review of how to provide a mechanism to use local facilities through discussion with the various agencies in the county such as Sport England and the Northampton Leisure Trust.
The motion was seconded by Councillor Julie Brookfield who felt the motion was concerned with encouraging schools and communities to work together and the Council was the enabling authority to facilitate this. There were many good examples that could be followed in other parts of the county, one of which was in the Priors Hall estate where the school and community centre were using each other’s facilities both in and outside of term time. She felt Council could encourage schools to open their facilities to enable local families to use them in groups, something that did not currently happen because schools created obstacles such as security, caretaking and cleaning. She felt these issues should not be a barrier to championing children’s health and learning through play.
Councillors commented as follows: It was felt that any activity that promoted the health and wellbeing of the county’s children should be supported and it was suggested the Customers, Communities and Learning Scrutiny Committee could take this forward. It was noted many school sites in the county were not governed by the Council, but academy sponsors or in the case of Northampton schools, PFI contracts.
Through the Chairman the Chairman of the Customers, Communities and Learning Scrutiny Committee requested an amendment that the motion be referred to scrutiny for further consideration as the Committee was due to receive a report from the Director of Northampton Sport, Chris Holmes on where facilities were and how they were or could be accessed.
In answer to a query from the Chairman Councillor Danielle Stone confirmed she was happy to accept the following amendment to her motion:
That the final paragraph be replaced with the following:
“Therefore, we agree that this issue be referred to the Children, Learning & Communities Scrutiny Committee with a view to developing recommendations on how to use existing facilities for children’s play."
RESOLVED that: Upon the vote the motion as amended was accepted.
82/13 Dates of Future Meetings:
The Chairman asked Council to note the proposed dates as noted on the agenda. In answer to a query she confirmed Northampton Borough Council had requested an alteration to the start time of the Annual General Meeting in 2014 as they had been required to move their AGM because of EU elections. The Chairman had agreed to propose a new start time to Council which would enable both Councils to hold their AGM’s on the same day.
RESOLVED that: Council agreed to meet on the following dates during 2014/15: Thursday 15 May 2014 (2pm) (AGM) Thursday 19 June 2014 (10.30am) Thursday 9 October 2014 (10.30am) Thursday 27 November 2014 (10.30am) Thursday 19 February 2015 (10am) (Budget) Thursday 19 March 2015 (10.30am) Thursday 21 May 2015 (10am) (AGM)
83/13 Urgent Business:
There was none.
84/13 Exempt Business:
There was none.
There being no further business the Chairman closed the meeting at 3.55pm.
Jenny Rendall Democratic Support 2 December 2013
Chairman’s Signature:-
Date:-
Appendix 1
NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
Recorded Votes for Council:
Date of Meeting: 28 November 2013
Item No: 7 – Opposition Priority Business (Motion submitted by Councillor Michael Brown regarding HS2)
Surname First Name For Against Abstain Absent Beardsworth Sally √
Bell Paul √
Boardman Catherine √
Brackenbury Wendy √
Brookfield Julie √
Broomfield Jim √
Brown Michael √
Brown Robin √
Butcher Mary √
Clarke Michael √
Collyer Adam √
Coombe Elizabeth √
Eales Gareth √
Glynane Brendan √
Golby Matthew √
Gonzalez de Savage Andre √
Groome Christopher √
Hakewill James √
Surname First Name For Against Abstain Absent Hales Eileen √
Hallam Mike √
Harker James √
Heggs Stanley √
Hills Alan √
Homer Sue √
Hope Jill √
Hughes Dudley √
Hughes Sylvia √
Kirkbride Joan √
Larratt Phil √
Lawman Graham √
Lawson Derek √
Legg Stephen √
Lofts Chris √
McCutcheon Arthur √
McGhee John √
Mackintosh David √
Matthews Allan √
Mercer Andrew √
Meredith Dennis √
Morris Ian √
Osborne Steve √
Parker Bill √
Patel Bhupendra √
Patel Suresh √
Roberts Russell √ Surname First Name For Against Abstain Absent
Sawbridge Ron √
Scott Bob √
Scrimshaw Mick √
Shephard Judy √
Slatter Steve √
Smith Heather √
Stone Danielle √
Strachan Winston √
Tye Michael √
Uldall Sarah √
Walker Allen √
Waters Malcolm √
TOTALS 4 49 3 1
Appendix 2
Questions submitted under rule 10.2
1. Question to Councillor Jim Harker, Leader of the Council from Councillor Sally Beardsworth:
We fund many outside bodies, and they provide opportunities for Councillors to attend so the Council knows how well they are operating, etc.. For example, the Royal theatre provides tickets to the Council leader. Why have we not received reports after each time you have attended the Royal using tickets procured through your position on the Council? Will we be receiving reports from Councillors who attend other outside bodies?
The theatre does not provide tickets for the council leader per se. It does provide tickets for all members of the Royal & Derngate Board, who periodically use the opportunity to report back to the executive directors and the board on performance and other issues. The Leader would only report back to the council if the actions of the theatre affected the council’s brand, reputation and investment. This is the same precedent for other outside bodies. If the leader uses his ticket he usually takes along other paying guests as well, as he did on Tuesday this week when four more tickets were sold, so the theatre benefits in a number of ways.
As it happens, the Leader has just completed his regulatory term of service as a board member and he is no longer a member of the board.
2. Question to Councillor Jim Harker, Leader of the Council from Councillor Chris Lofts:
The Governor of the Bank of England has confirmed that the Coalition Government’s policies are delivering real growth nationally. In addition a recent announcement by the Business Secretary Vince Cable stated that the Northamptonshire economy is moving forward and is led by investment from both the UK Government and the European Union.
Does the leader agree, therefore, that Northamptonshire’s Economy has been well supported by European Funding and that the future growth of jobs in the county will be best served by the UK remaining firmly within the European Union.
This Council and Local Enterprise Partnerships have worked hard and have been successful in sourcing various funding streams from Central Government, the Private Sector and bringing back monies from European Funding channels. It is quite clear that Northamptonshire’s economy has been well supported by European funding, and especially so since the County Council’s office in Brussels was established last year. I welcome the Councillors acknowledgement of the success we have had in bucking the economic trend regionally, nationally and internationally. I must also note that the real congratulations must go to the entrepreneurs and businesses in our county who are the real drivers of job creation and economic success. We provide the structural framework for them to operate in.
The future growth of jobs in the county will also be best served by a Conservative led County Council who have to date been at the forefront in creating the conditions and foundations for prosperity in this County.
With the assistance of our office in Brussels and the Northamptonshire Economic Partnership, a few examples of what we have achieved:
Icon Centre The iCon is a new landmark for the town of Daventry and a beacon for the low carbon economy in the UK and beyond. The award winning building includes over 55 offices for small businesses in the emerging market of sustainable construction, together with conference facilities, support and advice. The £8.5 million scheme has been designed to achieve an ‘excellent’ rating from BREEAM, a worldwide environmental assessment method. As well as playing home to a diverse range of innovative, green businesses, the iCon is a leading example of energy-efficiency and sustainability in its own right. It has been funded by West Northamptonshire Development Corporation, the European Regional Development Fund and the East Midlands Development Agency.
The iCon is a recognised exemplar of progressive design and energy efficiency. It has been designed to achieve an ‘excellent’ rating from BREEAM, the leading assessment method for the environmental performance of buildings. The building has been the recipient of two design awards, having won a 2010 Green Apple Award for the Built Environment and a 2009 Milton Keynes-South Midlands Excellence Award. Design features:
▪ A ‘fabric first’ energy efficient building, designed for stunning CO2 emissions of only 15kg/m2/year. ▪ Low carbon design features including a natural ventilation system, exhaust air heat pumps and phase change materials in the ceiling. ▪ A central ‘street’ with an inflatable roof – supporting natural temperature regulation of the building.
Corby Enterprise Centre The Corby Enterprise Centre (CEC) was officially opened on Friday 24th June 2011. The new, purpose built Enterprise Centre has been designed to provide ideal accommodation for entrepreneurs and start-ups to realise their business ambitions as well as giving existing businesses access to flexible office and workshop space to allow them to grow. With different sized offices and studios suitable for between 2 and 25 people, the Enterprise Centre is destined to be a lively new focus for business activity in the area. In addition to 24/7 access, free car parking and high speed communications, the Enterprise Centre will provide tenants with unique on-site support including access to a network of business development experts from a wide range of industries. As well as high class business accommodation the centre boasts top quality meeting and training space for up to 40 people which is available for hire to all businesses around the region.
The CEC received over £1.2m from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) which aims to stimulate enterprise and support the growth of successful businesses. The remainder of the £8.3m was funded by the East Midlands Development Agency (emda) £6.5m, Northamptonshire Enterprise Partnership (NEP) and Northamptonshire County Council £1m and Corby Borough Council £700k.
Corby Enterprise Ecologies The project supported the delivery of an innovative enterprise programme within Corby by seeking to deliver enterprise stimulation activities in disadvantaged communities. It will help to remove barriers to enterprise and entrepreneurship by delivering practical solutions
European Regional Development Fund at a glance In total the approximate subtotal of Priority Axis 1 projects funded from 2008 to date amounts to £9,011 864 with Priority Axis 2 amounting to approximately £3.5 million worth of projects pout of an allocation of £4million. The values relate to the current contract values, which could be subject to change. A summary of projects is provided as follows:
PA1 Newton building – University of Northampton £2,750,178 PA 1 I Hub – West Northamptonshire Development Corporation £4,306,016 PA1 Sustainable construction Inet – University of Northampton £1,872,470 PA1Sustainable Construction INET - - University of Northampton £83,200 Sub Total PA1 projects £9,011 864 PA2 Northamptonshire Pro Help – Corby – Business in the community £23,347 PA2 Corby Enterprise Ecologies – University of Northampton £767,895 PA 2 George Street – Corby Borough Council – ERDF PA2 £250,000 PA 2Corby Enterprise Centre – Corby Borough Council £1,160,115 PA2 Transformational ICT Corby - East Midlands Chambers of commerce £110,000
I have said that the County Council has been supported by European funding, but it is clear that things could be even better. It is the policy of this government to put the national interest of its people and economy first. The current government and our Prime Minister will be fighting hard to renegotiate our membership with the European Union which, if the Conservative Party form the next government, will present to the people of our great nation an In/Out referendum in 2017. A political party that is truly democratic would welcome the opportunity of a referendum and let the people to decide on such an important matter.
3. Question to Councillor Jim Harker, Leader of the Council from Councillor Chris Lofts:
The administration has stated many times recently that its number one priority is improving safeguarding children. Given this, has the administration considered adding a fifth customer outcome to the “Council Plan” specifically focused on the safeguarding of children, to ensure that it is at the forefront of everything we do?
We are publishing a new Council Plan at the December cabinet meeting. As always safeguarding of children and indeed vulnerable adults will be at the heart of that plan.
4. Question to Councillor Heather Smith, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member with responsibility for Communities from Councillor Brendan Glynane:
Given that we were told a 2 year turn around for Children’s Services, and given the worrying trend of officers and administration Councillors to now talk about a 3-5 year program of improvements – will the Councillor re-state her intention to resign should the service remain inadequate by March 2015?
The Deputy Leader stands by what she said to the media, earlier this year in respect of her position and improvements in Children’s services.
5. Question to Councillor Bill Parker, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Finance, Performance & LGSS from Councillor Danielle Stone:
How many new staff have been taken on by the Council in the last year and experienced delays in contracts being issued/ first and second salary payments being made?
There are no written statement of particulars (contracts) outstanding outside of the 8 week legal period for providing written statement of particulars from start date of employment and our payroll accuracy rate is 99.7% way above the industry standard of 95%.
6. Question to Councillor Catherine Boardman, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Children, Young People & Education from Councillor Jill Hope:
The Director of Children, Families and Education has advised the audit committee that there is a need for wide scale re-training of the staff in his directorate over the next 3-5 years. Therefore, it is assumed that current and past training has been inadequate. What is the Council doing to replace this failed provision?
There has been significant and ongoing investment in staff development across the Children’s Safeguarding Service. Between April to October 2013 we have;
1. Developed with the management of the service a Children, Families and Education Workforce Strategy 2013-2015.
2. Delivered a range of training interventions to help support Improvement in supervision practice and social care skills including;
a. Delivering two modules of the strengthening practice programme (Strengthening supervision and Strengthening Assessment) delivered to frontline practioners and team managers. Twenty five team managers have attended the strengthening supervision module and 110 managers and social workers have attended day one of the strengthening assessment. b. Following extensive and independent case file audit activity team manager and frontline practioner coaching is currently being provided with the aim of improving risk management, decision making and developing a culture of continuous learning and improved social care practice. c. A robust training needs analysis has been undertaken across children’s services in order to produce a training framework plan which dictates mandatory training, essential to role training and continuous professional development (CPD) for children’s social care staff. The aim is for the findings to be rolled out from January 2014, although training in areas of key skill deficits are currently being delivered for example; cultural awareness, child permanence records report writing in December 2013. d. A series of 10 ‘Making Children Safer’ Events from October 2013 to January 2014 are being held with 800 staff drawn from multi agency backgrounds. The aim of the workshops are to improve understanding of Northamptonshire’s vision for Children’s Services, partnership working, thresholds and eligibility and how to access early help and specialist interventions. e. Provision of on the job training on use of the Integrated Care System (ICS), Carefirst . f. One to one coaching to 5 Service Managers to support them with the current leadership and management challenges such as team and performance management. g. Seven team managers have undertaken the Institute of Leadership and Management (ILM 5) programme; developing critical thinking, leading innovation and change, understanding organisational culture and ethics, managing for efficiency and effectiveness, developing and leading teams to organisational goals and objectives, becoming and effective leader, understanding financial management. h. The development of a two day induction programme scheduled to be delivered in January 2014 on a rolling basis. i. Introduction of ‘Positive Action Group’ (PAG) whereby the Assistant Director meets monthly with front line team managers in order to foster a culture of openness and equality in the organisation that allows concerns to be raised, ideas to be generated and service to be improved. j. A corporate employee survey has been undertaken from 16th October – 14th November 2013 to gain a measure of staff engagement. A proactive action plan to address areas of concern will be developed once the results have been analysed. k. We have supported 33 NQSW’s to ensure completion of their academic work and where necessary supplement their experience through the provision of external workplace professional mentoring and supervision. In addition to the above we continue to support LSCBN with administration and delivery of their open programme. We have offered them an SLA for 2013/15 which will expand their portfolio to encompass a range of face to face and on-line learning programmes covering safeguarding , focus on multi agency working and leadership and management of safeguarding.
Looking forward the CF&E Workforce Strategy 2013-15 has identified 10 core workforce development themes which will drive the priorities for longer term investments in the development of the CF&E workforce.
Since LGSS has been commissioned to deliver CF&E workforce development during 2012/13 there have been significant improvements made and this remains a top priority for LGSS.
7. Question to Councillor Catherine Boardman, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Children, Young People & Education from Councillor Jill Hope:
Given that we are now advised the improvements to the Children, Family and Education Directorate will take 3-5 years, how soon do you expect to see the rest of the serious case reviews from the independent board?
The publication of serious case reviews is not dependent on the improvement programme so there is no link between the unpublished SCRs and the timescales for improvement.
The review process and the publication schedule are determined by the LSCBN; the chair of the LSCBN has made an assurance that SCRs will be published as quickly as possible within legal parameters which can include ongoing criminal proceedings.
8. Question to Councillor Catherine Boardman, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Children, Young People & Education from Councillor Jill Hope:
Given the failure of plans to expand the primary school in Kingsthorpe Village, and the existing lack of provision in the town centre, school place seekers are likely to shift east. Given this, will the Council be re-examining the possibility of building a school in Southfields to serve the local community?
Strategic Planning for schools is constantly reviewing the situation of school places. Given the decision not to allow the extension of Kingsthorpe Village Primary School, the team will have to consider alternative options within that vicinity. This is unlikely to consider the development of a site at Southfields.
9. Question to Councillor Robin Brown, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Public Health & Wellbeing from Councillor Danielle Stone:
How many children under 16 are suffering from rickets in the county? How reliable are the figures and what is being done about it? The issue of rickets has been in the press recently in the wake of the recent report by the Prof. Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer for England on the state of the health of our children and the need to focus on prevention at every opportunity. Rickets is preventable and while there are recent reports about the resurgence of rickets, thankfully it remains a rare disease in the UK. The rarity means that figures on the number of cases are not readily available. Vigilance and surveillance as regards this disease of the Victorian era have therefore become important. However, because rickets is not a notifiable disease and there are no statutory data returns collected nationally, regionally or locally at present, it is difficult to obtain and provide specific figures for the number of cases in any age group including the under-16 in the county. The chief medical officer has now asked the national agency NICE to review available evidence and data on the subject, and I have also asked Director of Public Health and Wellbeing to provide progress report on the work currently underway with local paediatricians and care providers who are keeping an eye on the local situation. While, there are no specific figures about rickets in the county, we do have some important information which prove useful in informing our current actions; which are: The most common cause of rickets is Vitamin D deficiency and it is estimated that up to 16% of us have some level of vitamin deficiency at any given time; Vitamin D deficiency is more common among the elderly, darker-skinned people, those with very limited exposure to sunlight including those who cover up and pregnant women may also be at risk; In the winter months, level of Vitamin D is generally on the low side for everyone and usually worse in the at-risk groups mentioned previously; and more importantly... To prevent rickets; being outdoors with 20-30 minutes exposure to sunlight 2-3 times a week can help the body generate enough Vitamin D to prevent rickets as well as a diet rich in fish, milk and cheese before getting to the treatment end where Vitamin D supplements can be used to treat and prevent rickets. In our county, Vitamin D supplement is available free of cost to pregnant mothers from when they are 10-weeks pregnant until their baby is 1 year old, and for babies from 6months - 4 years, as part of the Healthy Start Vitamin scheme. This is a targeted programme for families receiving: Income Support, or Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance, or Income-related Employment and Support Allowance, or Child Tax Credit (but not Working Tax Credit unless your family is receiving Working Tax Credit run-on only*) and has an annual family income of £16,190 or less (2013/14) Or, the mother is under 18 and pregnant, even if they are not in receipt of the above.
The Chief Medical Officer has now proposed a universal approach to the current Vitamin D supplement programme and the ongoing national review of evidence and possible implementation arrangements will inform our future arrangements for the Healthy Start Programme locally. We will continue to encourage outdoor activities, good diet and supporting.
10. Question to Councillor Catherine Boardman, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Children, Young People & Education from Councillor Danielle Stone
How many children in the county will be in temporary accommodation over Christmas?
We do not know how many children will be in temporary accommodation over Christmas until they present themselves as in need of temporary accommodation
Our Looked After Children report dated 18 December 2012 (this turned out to be the closest report date to Christmas Day) shows the following information:
Out of 750 looked after children at the time, there were was only one child living in temporary accommodation. The child was staying in a hotel at the time of the report.
11. Question to Councillor Michael Clarke, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Transport, Highways & the Environment from Councillor Michael Brown:
Traffic flows throughout the county are based on a formula and computer programme set by the Government. This formula has been used in the projection of vehicles throughout Kingsthorpe in 2011. The proposed development in Buckton Fields was included in the projections. However, despite serious concerns from the local residents, there has been no “real” count as to the amount of vehicles currently using the area at peak times.
To ascertain if the data provided is accurate, some 35 members of the local community have taken part in a survey over a period of a working week, Monday to Friday, to attain the actual current position.
I have received the following request below:
The material planning considerations which formed the basis of the DDC acceptance of Ensign's planning application in 2011 to build 1050 dwellings on Buckton Fields have been disproved as being inaccurate. We (WASPRA) as a democratic right request to present our findings to the appropriate Authorities to demonstrate the anomalies.
Can you agree to meet with representatives of WASPRA along with myself and any other interested parties before the 14th December to review and consider the outcomes of this survey?
The County Council monitors traffic flows and this data is used for modelling purposes to forecast the future projection for vehicle growth/usage.
As part of a planning submission the developer will have submitted a transport assessment which will include baseline i.e. counted and forecast which will be modelled (factored up accordingly) and this is checked this to ascertain if it is acceptable/reasonable
In respect of this particular site it may be helpful to confirm that :-
The traffic assessment utilised observed traffic data that had been collected by NCC; There was a dispute about the trips rates proposed by the applicant, and they reluctantly accepted trips rates provided to them by NCC; The distribution of development trips on the local highway network was agreed with NCC; The proposed discounting of development trips for mode shift was not accepted by NCC, and the assessment assumed no mode shift; The background traffic was subject to growth rates to 2021 (at the time of the assessment), which were agreed with NCC.
This application was approved some time ago and all these issues were considered as part of the planning process. There has been frequent contact on these issues with the local residents’ groups.
Whilst we would support Councillor Clarke in any meeting it may be helpful to advise that this was properly considered using NCC data and therefore we would question the benefit that could be gained from such a meeting as the presentation of any local traffic data will not have any affect on the planning permission.
12. Question to Councillor Michael Clarke, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Transport, Highways & the Environment from Councillor Michael Brown:
In May 2013 I was informed that Hinton Road along with other roads on this estate in Kingsthorpe was to be reviewed by “stressing” the concrete under the road surface and repairs made. To date this has not happened. I have spoken to the highways department and discovered that this work has been removed from this year’s budget.
Can you please advise me on the following: - Who removed these roads from a survey/repair? Why I was not informed of the decision? Will these roads on the estate now be the top priority next year?
We are not sure what the reference to "stressing" the concrete under the road surface and repairs made is referring to however we have been working on measures for concrete roads which involves carrying out patching works, rather than use Miles Macadam.
A priority list of these types of works has been prepared (below) which we are currently working through. The number of schemes completed in any one year is dependant on the amount of budget available.
Hinton Road hasn't been removed from a survey/repair, it is the next priority on the list and a budget of £64k has been allocated for 'patching' (extensive large areas of 40mm plane and patch plus ironwork). This work is currently programmed to take place in February 2014 Therefore there was no need to inform the Councillor of the decision If (due to weather) it is not completed this financial year then it will be the highest priority for 2014-15, but this work is expected to take place and be completed this financial year
RANKING ROAD NAME DISTRICT ESTIMATE 1 MUSCOTT LANE NORTHAMPTON £ 40,000.00 Complete 2 OVERTHORPE RD, CHETWODE NO 5-12 SOUTH NORTHANTS £ 10,000.00 Complete 3 CARTWRIGHT RD, NEWBOTTLE SOUTH NORTHANTS £ 15,000.00 Complete 4 STANWELL DR, MIDDLETON CHENEY SOUTH NORTHANTS £ 10,000.00 Complete 5 SOUTHFIELD RD NORTHAMPTON On Estate Makeover list 6 HINTON ROAD NORTHAMPTON £ 64,000.00 Feb 2014 7 APPLE DORE CLOSE NORTHAMPTON £ 5,750.00 Feb 2014 8 FIR TREE WALK NORTHAMPTON On Estate Makeover list 9 COACHING WALK NORTHAMPTON On Estate Makeover list 10 ASHLEY WAY NORTHAMPTON On Estate Makeover list 11 CHARNWOOD AVE NORTHAMPTON On Estate Makeover list 12 MONMOUTH RD NORTHAMPTON On Estate Makeover list 13 COUNTESS ROAD NORTHAMPTON On Estate Makeover list 14 PEMBROKE RD NORTHAMPTON On Estate Makeover list 15 NEW ROAD NORTHAMPTON £ 15,000.00
13. Question to Councillor Michael Clarke, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Transport, Highways & The Environment from Councillor Michael Brown:
On the 17th July this year I, along with other councillors, attended the Highways meeting in the Council chamber. At this meeting I raised the question of being updated with the roads repair spread sheet in advance. I have also raised this in further meetings. We are now approaching December with no sign of the reports being made available to us. Roads are a big issue for our constituents.
Can you confirm the following: -
1. When will these reports be made available County Councillors? Notice of works is contained in the Members newsletters, which is circulated monthly. A copy of the newsletter is sent to the Councillors County Council e-mail address. Since October the newsletter has also been made available on the internet. http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/en/councilservices/Transport/roads/Pages/Ne wslettersandWorkProgrammes.aspx
2. The diary for receiving them? Normally around the 25th of each month.
3. Explain why they have not appeared for such a long time? This information has been available since April 2013 and has been accessible on the County Council website since October. (with the exception of May 2013 when no report was produced ).
14. Question to Councillor Suresh Patel, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Adult Care Services from Councillor Mary Butcher:
What mechanisms does this Council have in place for looking at quality assurance with regards to Adult Social Care Services?
NCC staff assess, develop support plans,put them in place where the individual prefers this, and carry out reviews for those who are eligible for support. We also take and respond to safeguarding referrals.
The quality assurance processes for these functions are within the management structure and performance management processes of the organisation, and include monitoring visits to providers as well as working closely with the regulator CQC –Care Quality Commission. Whilst managers undertake file audits and quality assure within our robust supervision regime, we are not complacent. We have created a Quality Assurance post and are developing more rigorous performance management and quality assurance regimes which rely on both qualitative and quantitative information.
15. Question to Councillor Suresh Patel, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Adult Care Services from Councillor Mary Butcher:
Does this Council commission organisations delivering care in the county to provide fifteen minute flying care visits?
Home care services exist to support people with assessed needs to live as independent a life as possible within the community. Each person using these services is treated as a unique individual by placing them at the centre of and, as far as possible, in control of their care, treatment and support, ensuring that everything that is done is based on what is important to that person from their own perspective. Care and support will therefore be delivered in very different ways depending on the needs of each person using the service.
The duration of each visit is from 15 minutes to a full 24 hours of support. 15 minute service visits have a role to play where an individual needs support that does not include elements of intimate personal care. Where personal care is required the visit would, in normal circumstances, be commissioned for 30 minutes or more. However, each person will be involved in the formulation of their support plan and all support is subject to review where changes can be enacted as required by the service user and their representatives.
16. Question to Councillor Suresh Patel, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Adult Care Services from Councillor Mary Butcher:
Is this Administration confident that Adult Social Care Services will not find itself in a similar situation to Children’s Services in the near future?
Locally as well as nationally there are immense challenges in providing good quality adult social care services within the available budget. Our response to this challenge, locally as nationally, is to develop a changed model of health and social care with more integrated arrangements. While there are risks in this unprecedented level of change, we believe it is the best way of securing wellbeing for Northamptonshire residents across both health and social care.
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK