MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL HELD AT COUNTY HALL, GLENFIELD ON WEDNESDAY, 23 MARCH 2011

PRESENT Mr. P. C. Osborne CC (in the Chair)

Mr. A. D. Bailey CC, Mr. D. C. Bill CC, Mr. R. Blunt CC, Mr. G. A. Boulter CC, Mr. S. L. Bray CC, Mrs. R. Camamile CC, Mr. M. H. Charlesworth CC, Mr. J. G. Coxon CC, Mrs. J. A. Dickinson CC, Dr. R. K. A Feltham CC, Mrs. J. Fox CC, Mr. S. J. Galton CC, Mr. D. A. Gamble CC, Mr. B. Garner CC, Mr. T. Gillard CC, Mr. M. Griffiths CC, Mr. P. S. Harley CC, Mr. G. A. Hart CC, Dr. S. Hill CC, Mr. D. W. Houseman MBE, CC, Mr. Max Hunt CC, Mr. D. Jennings CC, Mr. G. Jones CC, Mr. A. M. Kershaw CC, Mr. P. G. Lewis CC, Mr. W. Liquorish JP CC, Mrs. H. E. Loydall CC, Mr. K. W. P. Lynch CC, Mr. J. Miah CC, Ms. Betty Newton CC, Mr. J. T. Orson JP CC, Mr. I. D. Ould CC, Mr. M. B. Page CC, Mrs. R. Page CC, Mr. B. L. Pain CC, Mr. D. R. Parsons CBE CC, Mr. G. Partner CC, Mrs. L. A. S. Pendleton CC, Mrs. P. Posnett CC, Mrs. C. M. Radford CC, Mr. J. B. Rhodes CC, Mrs. J. Richards CC, Mr. P. A. Roffey CC, Mr. N. J. Rushton CC, Mr. R. J. Shepherd CC, Mr. D. Slater CC, Mr. E. D. Snartt CC, Mr. D. A. Sprason CC, Mr. E. F. White CC, Mr. R. M. Wilson CC, Mr. D. O. Wright CC and Mr. M. B. Wyatt CC

92. CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS.

Mr Charles (Mike) Halliday MBE

The Chairman reported with great sadness the death on 25 February 2011 of former County Councillor Mr Mike Halliday, aged 88 years.

He had been elected to the County Council at a by-election on 20 August 1992 and had served until the following May, representing the former Groby and Ratby Electoral Division. Although only serving on the County Council for a short period he had been a prominent local politician who served for many years on the Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council and Groby Parish Council.

Those present to joined the Chairman in silent tribute to the memory of Mr Mike Halliday.

Japanese Ambassador

The Chairman reported that, following the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan, he had written on behalf of the County Council to the Japanese Ambassador expressing sympathy with his Country's difficulties and expressing hope for the future.

Armed Services

The Chairman referred with thanks to the generosity which had been shown by Mr Michael Griffiths CC in purchasing the Military Cross received by 2 nd Lieutenant Fairall, a local soldier who served in the First World War and presenting it to the Tigers' Regiment at a recent County Council event. The medal was being displayed for an initial period at County Hall alongside other memorabilia of the Royal Leicestershire Regiment.

Visitors

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting all visitors and guests of members.

93. MINUTES.

It was moved by the Chairman, seconded by the Vice-Chairman and carried:-

“That the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 23 February 2011, copies of which had been circulated to members, be taken as read, confirmed and signed.”

94. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST.

The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to make declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting.

No such declarations were made.

95. QUESTIONS ASKED UNDER STANDING ORDER 7(1)(2) AND (5).

(A) MR JENNINGS CC asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-

"1. Is the Leader aware of the difficulties being experienced by residents of Countesthorpe as a result of bus service changes, and specifically that:-

(i) the Arriva bus company has cut the 85 Service – Countesthorpe – Leicester on weekdays from a bus every 15 minutes to one every 30 minutes, causing residents acute problems;

(ii) villages such as Glen Parva and Blaby do not have their own services and therefore rely on the 85 Service, together with the 84 Service (Broughton Astley), which means that Countesthorpe residents often cannot make use of the service because buses are full;

(iii) Centrebus has removed the 45 Service – Oadby – Countesthorpe – Fosse Park, adding to the difficulties;

(iv) at a time when Countesthorpe is expanding (it is to have another 500 new houses) there is a need for better rather than lesser bus services in that area?

2. Recognising that these are private commercial services, would the Leader consider what might be done to improve the situation, bearing in mind that the existence of good quality bus services can encourage people to leave their cars at home?"

Mrs Pendleton replied as follows:

"1. I am aware that changes are taking place. However, Leicestershire still has, overall, good coverage of bus services, with over 80% being provided by the commercial operators at no cost to the County Council. This is backed up by the supported bus network, meaning that over 95% of Leicestershire residents are within 800m of an hourly or better bus service.

The County Council’s LTP3, to be considered at this meeting, emphasises the importance of the bus network in meeting transport needs. The more of this that can be provided on a commercial basis, the less is the burden on the County Council and Council Taxpayers. To that end, the Environment and Transport Department is in active contact with the operators but, of course, ultimately it is a commercial decision for them to take. I would be happy to try to arrange a meeting between the operator in this particular case and Mr Jennings, so that local concerns can be fully explained.

2. I can assure Mr Jennings that a review of the supported bus network will be carried out over the coming year, to ensure that in the context of budgetary reductions, local needs are met as far as possible."

(B) MR ORSON CC asked the following question of the Chairman of the Adults, Communities and Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee:-

"1. Is the Chairman of the Adults, Communities and Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee aware that NHS Leicestershire County and Rutland PCT is to withdraw funding to Long Clawson Medical Practice which they use to commission a rehabilitation bed located at Hunters Lodge, Old Dalby, without active engagement with the practice or consultation with local people?

2. Would the Chairman agree to consider what the Committee might do towards ensuring that this vital local service is able to continue?"

Mrs Camamile replied as follows:

"1. I understand that this scheme was set up under Practice Based Commissioning (PBC) by Long Clawson Medical Practice to run for a fixed period of time ending March 2011. From April 2011 it will be the responsibility of GP Consortia in their shadow form to determine their local priorities for commissioning schemes. Funding is being made available by the Primary Care Trust to support the transition and this will enable funding of the bed to continue until the end of May.

I hope that any decision on the future of this provision will be taken by the new Consortium in a considered way after appropriate consultation with the practice and its patients and that it will be based on sound evidence of the costs and benefits of the service.

2. I think it is important for the Adults, Communities and Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee to be prepared to look into issues such as this, perhaps in the context of a wider countywide consideration of the provision of intermediate care and reablement schemes in community settings, including support for people in their own homes, which would prevent or shorten hospital admissions."

(C) MR PAIN CC asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-

"Would the Leader please give me an update on how the Council is supporting and promoting the Big Society?"

Mr Rushton replied as follows:

"First may I congratulate Blake Pain and his Scrutiny Panel on its work. I am pleased that the Cabinet has been able to allocate considerable additional funding to ensure the Panel’s recommendations can be implemented.

Of course the Council already does a lot that fits with Big Society principles. We involve local people in our community forums, we involve people in planning our services and we involve people in running local services such as the new community centre in Barwell. We have a network of volunteers working to support County Council services and improve life in their communities, for example Flood and Tree Wardens and our Master Composters. I am particularly pleased that so many people have decided to take the opportunity to tell us what green spaces they want to protect and improve – over 1000 people so far through community forums and more than 700 people on line.

We have a lot of good work to build on but of course we need to do more, because Big Society is about not just involving people but putting them in the lead, in control.

Our investment of nearly £1m next financial year will be for the community not for bureaucracy:

-£350,000 for communities to improve their areas with priorities set through community forums with support from local members - Funding to enable community to get the support they need to get projects off the ground – “helping communities to help themselves” and I want at least 12 communities supported to achieve an improvement to their place or to set up a service in 2011/12 - Support for setting up and sustaining social enterprises.

I also want the Council to be even more aware of the need to support Big Society principles and our four local aspirations in its work. These are ‘everyone can be involved in their community’, ‘everyone has opportunities to influence decisions that affect them’, ‘local people are able to shape and deliver public services’ and ‘local people and organisations grow the Big Society together’.

We have, for example, been freed from the excessive inspection regime set up by the previous Government. Instead of accounting to the Audit Commission we provide information to our communities so that they can hold us to account for service performance.

Finally I look forward to seeing the results of the next stage of the Panel's work when it looks at the opportunities provided by the Localism Bill."

(D) MR SLATER CC asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-

"The Department for Communities and Local Government has so far identified 1294 statutory duties that central government currently places on local government in a review currently being undertaken and is inviting comments, particularly on those which are no longer needed:-

1. How does the Council intend to respond to this consultation?

2. Does the Leader agree that this Council needs to support the Coalition Government's drive to free local authorities from burdensome and onerous legislation?"

Mr Parsons replied as follows:

"1. The consultation paper invites comments on:-

• What duties are vital to keep; • What duties should be repealed; • What burdens have been created through particular duties and associated regulations and guidance; • What duties have not been included on the list but should also be considered in the Review.

The Chief Executive is co-ordinating an exercise across the Council to establish what might be an appropriate response to these detailed questions.

2. I am very much in favour of local authorities being able to run their own affairs unfettered by central control and burdensome, centrally imposed, rules and regulations."

(E) MRS DICKINSON CC asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-

"1. Could the Leader please indicate if any representations have been made by the Council to Network Rail regarding the catalogue of mistakes that have happened so far during the replacement of the bridge on the B582 Whetstone?

2. Has Network Rail offered any explanation or apology for the unacceptable levels of disturbance and disruption which have been suffered by the travelling public?

3. Will there be any recompense from Network Rail (either directly or through its contractors) to the residents of the parishes of Enderby, Narborough, Littlethorpe and Whetstone who have borne the brunt of the added congestion, poor air quality and general inconvenience caused to residents during the unscheduled closure of the B582?

4. Can my thanks be passed to the relevant staff of the Environment and Transport Department who have had to work so hard in dealing with such a difficult situation not of their making?"

Mrs Pendleton replied as follows:

"1. Representations have been made by County Council officers, trying to ensure that Network Rail and its contractors complete the works at Whetstone (and other locations affected by the Peterborough to Nuneaton W10 gauge project) as quickly as possible. The Chief Executive wrote to the Chief Executive of Network Rail on 8 March 2011. Network Rail responded on 9 March stating that the “letter is receiving attention and a formal response will follow shortly”.

2. Network Rail has offered explanations for the disturbance and disruption caused. As Enderby Road crosses the railway at an angle, the original bridge structure was appropriately skewed. However, this skewing has caused difficulties in terms of the construction of inspection chambers adjacent to the alignment for the new bridge and the unsuccessful bridge slide of the weekend of 12/13 March. The closure over the weekend of 26/27 February had to be extended by two weeks as the County Council officers were concerned that Network Rail’s contractors were not able to effect appropriate temporary repairs to support the road structure – this followed ground slippage on all four corners of the bridge over the 26/27 February weekend. The extension of the closure until 21 March is to allow Network Rail’s contractors (and their consultants) to ascertain why the bridge began to rotate when the bridge slide commenced and ascertain how to prevent this happening for the rest of the slide. Network Rail is reluctant to attempt further bridge sliding whilst live rail traffic continues underneath and the earliest full railway line possession (for 10 hours) available was the night of Saturday 19 March. Network Rail has apologised in recent press releases.

3. As Network Rail is obliged by statute to maintain and improve the rail network infrastructure (including the Peterborough to Nuneaton W10 gauge project), it is not obliged to provide compensation to any road user or resident affected by congestion, poor air quality and general inconvenience. The Chief Executive’s letter suggests that this situation be reviewed by both Network Rail and its contractors.

4. Such thanks are gratefully received. County Council officers are regrettably unable to bring much real influence to bear over Network Rail’s activities but continue to push for a satisfactory conclusion to this drawn-out project."

Mrs Dickinson asked the following supplementary questions:

On the reply to question 1:

"Could the Lead Member advise if Network Rail has given the letter from the Chief Executive any attention and have they replied?

On the reply to question 3:

"I assume that the answer will be no to that but could I ask if the appropriate person, whoever that may be, requests Network Rail to send letters of apology to the four parishes mentioned?"

Mrs Pendleton replied as follows:

"1. As a result of the letter sent by John Sinnott to the Chief Executive of Network Rail, two senior managers from Network Rail met at 8.15am this morning with Matthew Lugg. This was a constructive meeting where Network Rail acknowledged that the work they were undertaking in Leicestershire to date had not gone well and this was in terms of project management and communications, for which they were apologetic. They were also prepared, working with their contractors, to consider what they could do, as a consequence, for the most affected communities. They also gave reassurance that on the outstanding and ongoing bridge works they would, as a consequence, review the overall management and communication arrangements to avoid any further delays and disruption.

2. As Mrs Dickinson says, Network Rail do not have to pay any compensation or give any apologies to anyone but I would urge her to ask the businesses and the people who have been affected to contact Network Rail and ask for some sort of compensation, and I would be very pleased to ask Matthew Lugg to forward the name of the person to contact, so that she could forward it on."

(F) MR CHARLESWORTH CC asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-

"1. Prior to the budget meeting on the 23 February, did all members of the Council receive the same budget information?

2. If so, did they receive it at the same time?

3. The budget book shows £104m of investments. Could I please be provided with a summary of the full portfolio?

4. Bearing in mind that this Authority has millions of pounds in investments, how much is invested in the following areas:

Armaments/defence Tobacco Alcohol Oil & Gas Peoples' Republic of China?"

Mr Rushton replied as follows:

"1. In general yes. Information relating to the Medium Term Financial Strategy was provided to all members. This included the same reports being sent to Cabinet, Scrutiny and the full Council. In addition, an all member briefing was held and party groups were offered the opportunity of private briefings. Party groups or members thereof also took the opportunity of exploring the details of the budget with individual Chief Officers on a party political confidential basis as provided for in the protocol on Member/Officer Relations.

2. The process of producing the Medium Term Financial Strategy takes place over a long period and involves many meetings, presentations and individual and group requests for information. This inevitably means that information is not always provided to all members at the same time. Indeed, the process for approving the budget set out in the Budget and Policy Framework Procedure Rules recognises this by requiring the Executive to prepare and publish its detailed budget proposals as one of the first steps in the process. When Cabinet, Scrutiny and full Council agenda/reports are published, some members may receive them earlier than other members due to the time of Royal Mail deliveries and when members are at home. All members, however, can access agenda/reports at the same time as they are published on the County Council's website.

3. The £104m is the value of investments, which is shown within the Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Annual Investment Strategy 2011/12. The table below shows the financial institutions where the County Council had invested its surplus cash at the 31 December 2010.

The split of investments was:

£m Royal Bank of Scotland 39.0 Barclays 20.0 Cornwall County Council 5.0 Lloyds Banking Group/Bank of Scotland 40.0

104.0

4. The investments relate to cash deposits in banks and other institutions that earn interest for the County Council. They are not investments in shares or other financial instruments."

Mr Charlesworth asked the following supplementary question on the reply to question 2:

"Did Conservative members receive information before other members of this Council?"

Mr Rushton replied as follows:

"I refer Mr Charlesworth to the answer given to question 2."

(G) MR CHARLESWORTH CC asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-

"Can I please have the full list of all publications produced by this Council for external purposes?"

Mr Rushton replied as follows:

"I refer Mr Charlesworth to the County Council's Publication Scheme which is available on the Authority's website."

(H) MR CHARLESWORTH CC asked the following question of the Chairman of the Scrutiny Commission:-

"What lessons can be learnt from the decision of the Cabinet to overturn the recommendations of a Scrutiny Panel (School Transport - Historic Exceptions) for political purposes?"

Mr Galton replied as follows:

"The Home to School Transport Panel, which was chaired by Mr David Slater, produced a well researched report. The recommendations of the Panel sought to ensure that that the application and implementation of the County Council’s Home to School Transport policy was fair, equitable and affordable.

The recommendations of the Panel (and there were 29 of them) were all accepted by the Cabinet save in the case of historic exceptions where the decision was to accept the recommendation that these should be phased out but that the proposed transition period should be extended. I do think it is important to apply Council policies fairly and consistently and share the concerns of other members as to why historic exceptions have been reprieved by the Cabinet for a further year.

This review, in my view, has shown the value of Scrutiny, particularly review panels and their role in the area of policy development. This vexed issue of Home to School Transport was tackled head on in a rigorous and professional manner. The consultation with schools and others was extensive. The recommendations, some of which I know did not go down too well with members, schools and parents, were nonetheless well thought through and evidence based.

As the Chairman of the Commission I am acutely aware that Scrutiny is not a decision making body and its role is to advise and challenge the Executive. Ultimately the decision on any matter is one for the Executive and it is for the Executive to justify its decisions. If Scrutiny is to be successful it needs to ensure that it operates as a critical friend, reflects the voice and concerns of the public and is realistic in its expectations. I believe that Scrutiny in Leicestershire is making good progress in this direction."

(I) MR WRIGHT CC asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-

"On the issue of home to school transport, and following the Leader's decision to allot, for 2011-12, £170,000 to assist schools and parents in the transition from 'historic exceptions' status, would it not have been fairer to allot that sum to the service known as 'school specials', where parents had been already paying their contributions to costs rather than giving it to 'historic exceptions', where parents had previously paid nothing?"

Mr Parsons replied as follows:

"Dealing with transitions that require the withdrawal of a service is never easy. In the cases where there is a fare paying service, the principle of paying has been established, whereas with historic exceptions it has not. I have decided that a one year period of grace to allow the development of alternative services for historic exceptions is fair and I stand by that choice."

(J) MR WRIGHT CC asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-

"On the issue of the sale of care homes:

1. The covenant concerning any further sale-on of these homes and the land on which they are situated is limited to three years. Was this not far too short a period?

2. The agreed sum for nine homes was a very small amount of money for so many premises. How do you justify such a reckless disposal of valuable assets?

3. Given that the loss, in the longer term, of the specialist day centres at The Limes in Hinckley and Curtis Weston House in Wigston would be a huge blow to their local communities, did the contract drawn up in anticipation of sales contain any condition or requirement relating to the retention of these day services?"

Mr Sprason replied as follows:

"1. For clarity the transfer of the care homes will be on the basis of the following post transfer provisions:-

a) transferring residents will not be financially disadvantaged and will have their fee rates protected for a period of three years, or for the duration of their lives whichever is the lesser period.

b) the freehold transfers will be subject to a condition which in the event of a sale of the property within 10 years of its transfer from the County Council entitles the Council to a percentage share of any profit arising from the uplift in the then value of the property as a result of the sale of assets for purposes other than care services for older people; if those profits are to be invested in care services for older people in Leicestershire, consideration will be given to waiving this condition.

2. Each Elderly Person's Home (EPH) was treated as an individual ‘lot’ for the purpose of the procurement process. The transfer of the nine EPHs as going concerns was advertised widely across the existing care home sector with interested organisations able to express their interest in one or more of the homes. Following a robust tender process, Southend Care Ltd was identified as the ‘best bid’ for each of the nine homes and would generate the maximum capital receipt that could be achieved.

3. At tender stage of the procurement the organisations who tendered for either Curtis Weston House and/or The Limes all indicated that they did not wish to continue the provision of the day centres, which was not a requirement of the transfer. This does not necessarily mean that the day centres will close either prior to, or on the date that the homes transfer. Southend Care has agreed in principle that they will consider an interim arrangement that would enable the Council to continue operating the day centres at the existing premises on a temporary basis, whilst the transition to new models of day services is fully implemented. Consultation on the Day Services Strategy concluded on Friday 18 March, Cabinet will consider a report on the outcome of this on 5 April 2011. Subject to this approval, an implementation plan to take the strategy forward will be developed which will consider the needs and requirements of each locality, including the provision of specialist services."

(K) DR HILL CC asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-

"This Council has seen the emphasis in its central adult social care policy, as championed by Mr Sprason, to move from care homes to extra care facilities. Since the care homes were first available for sale/transfer, could the Leader confirm:-

1. How many units of extra care have or will be built in Leicestershire?

2. How this compares to original targets set out in the Extra Care strategy?

3. What percentage of proceeds from the sale of the care homes will be used for extra care?"

Mr Sprason replied as follows:

"1. There are currently 166 units of Extra Care housing available in Leicestershire which have been developed over the last 10 years. These have been either newly developed or are refurbished and upgraded existing sheltered facilities.

At the Cabinet meeting of the 15 December 2009, members approved the Leicestershire Extra Care Housing Strategy for Older People, 2010-2015. The strategy identified the need for 500 additional Extra Care places by 2015.

There is also extensive provision by district councils and other social landlords of sheltered accommodation across the County. Some of these schemes are hard to let because their facilities are no longer sufficiently attractive to older people. District councils and other registered social landlords also need to consider how they can modernise these schemes, and develop them in partnership with the County Council as Extra Care.

2. Whilst the 500 unit target is still relevant the prevailing financial climate, and scarcity of grant funding, will severely restrict the County’s ability to deliver the volume of units required. However, the “Melton Solution” at the Catherine Daley/Silverdale site is still progressing. This purpose built flagship model will provide 30-50 Extra Care housing units including specialist dementia care in one integrated development.

We are also exploring the potential to bid for Homes and Communities Agency affordable housing grant to unlock investment that would support the development of a 50 unit Extra Care scheme elsewhere in the County.

3. The commitment is to recycle the capital receipts from the transfer of the care homes into Extra Care housing and this will enable the schemes outlined in the reply to Question 2 to move forward.

The fact that the Authority is seeking to provide 70+ new units over the next 2-3 years demonstrates its strong commitment to Extra Care housing provision."

(L) DR HILL CC asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-

"I recognise the immense amount of work the Leader does across the field of local government and I would like to gain a greater understanding of this. Could the Leader please tell me how many external boards and committees he currently attends in addition to his role as Leader of this Authority?"

Mr Parsons replied as follows:

"Two."

Dr Hill asked the following supplementary question:

"I am surprised given how busy his diary is that there are only two extra boards and committees and could the Leader list them for me please?"

Mr Parsons replied as follows:

"I could be persuaded to do so."

(M) MR HUNT CC asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-

"1. What are the quarterly figures of the number of residents in receipt of care packages since 2009 to date, and the estimated number to 2013?

2. What effect will the change in eligibility criteria have upon the number of service users and on those who have over £23,000 in savings?"

Mr Sprason replied as follows:

"1. This information is not collected on a quarterly basis and it would not be possible to provide this without a significant amount of staff time and expense. It is possible to provide information for the number of people receiving a care package as at 31 March and to make estimates for future years on this basis.

At 31 March the number of people in receipt of services was as follows:-

31 March 2009 = 13,423 31 March 2010 = 12,230 31 March 2011 (estimated) = 12,100 31 March 2012 (estimated) = 8,700 31 March 2013 (estimated) = 8,700.

2. The report to Cabinet of 19 January 2011 stated that there were approximately 3,570 people with an eligibility category of moderate. A number of these people will however be entitled to services under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act and they will retain their eligibility to services. This means that the likely number of people who would no longer be eligible for long term care services reduces to 3,400 . These estimates are reflected in the information given in my previous answer.

The change in eligibility criteria will have no additional impact on people because they have savings over £23,000. Most social care services are subject to a means tested charge but this is not connected to an individual’s eligibility status.

(N) MR HUNT CC asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-

"What are the total schools budgets for each County Secondary School in (a) 2010-11 and to the extent that it is known (b) 2011-12?"

Mr Ould replied as follows:

"A schedule of secondary school budgets is set out below. There have been significant structural changes to the school budget settlement through the mainstreaming of grants into the schools funding formula which distorts the comparison between years. School Sixth Form allocations for 2011/12 are not yet known.

2010-11 2011-12 Total Total Excluding Excluding Standards Pupil Grant & 6th Premium & School Name Form 6th Form £ £ The Martin High School, Anstey 2,283,700 2,623,847 4,529,695 5,288,695 , Ashby de la Zouch 3,207,186 3,533,329 Humphrey Perkins High School and Community Centre, Barrow upon Soar 3,124,438 3,568,648 Longslade Community College 3,631,636 4,141,910 The 2,570,347 2,852,854 Belvoir High School and Community Centre 2,426,353 2,841,854 Winstanley Community College 2,263,430 2,496,551 Thomas Estley Community College 2,522,795 2,763,421 Hastings High School 1,951,138 2,213,368 Castle Donington Community College 1,845,214 2,041,707 Castle Rock High School 2,059,460 2,343,824 King Edward VII Community College, Coalville 3,018,754 3,393,880 Newbridge High School 1,950,910 2,302,234 Countesthorpe Community College 2,886,050 3,573,914 2,135,395 2,459,976 The Bosworth Community College 3,852,642 4,397,559 Heathfield High School 1,929,499 2,150,611 William Bradford Community College 1,665,805 1,778,022 2,819,066 3,409,115 , Groby 2,256,826 2,581,629 Groby Community College 2,495,422 2,798,609 Redmoor High School 1,575,662 1,935,578 Mount Grace High School 2,186,210 2,502,872 John Cleveland College 5,018,362 5,702,534 Ibstock Community College 2,409,690 2,746,362 Kibworth High School and Community Centre 2,409,452 2,673,926 Burleigh Community College 2,938,216 3,199,753 De Lisle Catholic School, 3,976,642 4,549,519 The Garendon High School 1,749,403 1,911,537 Limehurst High School 1,719,970 1,994,955 Woodbrook Vale High School 1,846,531 2,297,177 2,490,291 2,841,490 5,059,847 5,782,793 Market Bosworth High School and Community College 2,093,924 2,495,178 Welland Park Community College 2,486,404 2,965,697 The Robert Smyth School 3,448,945 4,040,783 South Charnwood High School 2,186,568 2,360,718 John Ferneley High School 3,248,321 4,073,999 King Edward VII School , Melton 2,062,791 469,851 The Long Field High School 2,643,017 3,466,132 The 4,160,869 4,915,504 , Oadby 2,817,109 3,126,300 Manor High School, Oadby 2,946,945 3,404,753 Rawlins Community College, Quorn 4,058,330 4,528,841 Shepshed High School 2,025,024 2,242,706 Hind Leys Community College 1,832,521 2,102,638 Saint Martin’s Catholic School, Stoke Golding 1,367,450 1,544,304 Wreake Valley Community College 4,385,550 4,897,345 Roundhill Community College 2,444,345 2,547,777 Abington High School 2,483,477 2,732,521 2,491,949 2,784,731 Guthlaxton College, Wigston 4,484,560 4,858,286 South Wigston High School 2,946,446 3,289,448"

Mr Hunt asked the following supplementary question:

"It is an interesting list of figures to which Mr Ould kindly says that the mainstreaming of grants into the schools funding formula has distorted the comparisons. I wondered if he could supply a list of those grants and the known levels at which they are, and explain the substantial difference in some of the figures between one school and another, and perhaps that might be a written answer?"

Mr Ould replied as follows:

"I will look into the matter."

(O) MR HUNT CC asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-

"Acknowledging the helpful document outlining steps Governing Bodies might take before considering moving to an academy, will the Leader or his nominee now inform schools of the errors reported by his Department in the DfE Ready Reckoner, as it applies to Leicestershire?"

Mr Ould replied as follows:

"The Department of Education is unable to correct the inconsistency within the 2010/11 Academic Year Ready Reckoner which is based upon 2009/10 Leicestershire Section 52 Statement spend. However, the figures with it are the ones that Academies will be funded for the 2010/11 academic year. For the 2011/12 academic year beginning in September 2011, Academies will be funded based upon the Leicestershire Section 251 Statement for 2010/11 which does not carry forward the 2009/10 inconsistency. It is therefore not planned to report this issue to schools."

(P) MR HUNT CC asked the following question of the Spokesman of the Police Authority:-

"What are the comparative totals of (a) Police Officers and (b) civilians in March 2009, March 2010 and March 2011?"

Dr Hill replied as follows:

"The following tables show the comparative totals for the three periods requested based on information sourced from the Force’s HR Business Information Systems.

The first column shows the actual headcount i.e. actual number of people in post and therefore paid via payroll with the second column showing the approved and budgeted Full Time Equivalent (FTE) establishment.

It should be noted that the numbers shown for March 2011 are based on the latest estimates as the period has not yet ended.

Police Officer to Police Staff Ratio March 2009

Actual 31 March 2009 Headcount FTE CIV 1,590 1,471.7 POL 2,376 2,345.3 Total 3,966 3,817.0

Officer to Staff Ratio 1.5:1 1.6:1

Police Officer to Police Staff Ratio March 2010

Actual 31 March 2010 Headcount FTE CIV 1,621 1,487.3 POL 2,342 2,307.9 Total 3,963 3,795.1

Officer to Staff Ratio 1.4:1 1.6:1

Police Officer to Police Staff Ratio March 2011 (Projected Figures)

Actual 31 March 2011 Headcount FTE CIV 1,492 1,373.9 POL 2,241 2,206.3 Total 3,733 3,580.2

Officer to Staff Ratio 1.5:1 1.6:1"

(Q) MR BILL CC asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-

"An article in the current issue of the Hinckley Times states that the private care home operator Southern Cross, who run two nursing homes in Hinckley, is experiencing financial difficulties. As this situation could clearly impact on the provision of social care could the Leader please indicate:-

1. Whether any of the residents affected are supported by the County Council?

2. What provision will be put in place should the worst happen to these homes?

3. What is the County Council’s responsibilities to those residents who are not supported by the Council but who nevertheless will be affected if this happens?

4. Was the potential for this scenario taken into account when the transfer of the Residential Homes was agreed last week?"

Mr Sprason replied as follows:

"1. The Council currently funds 145 residents within Southern Cross Homes in the County. Of these, people 30 are placed in Hinckley.

2. The Council continues to monitor the situation in relation to this provider and the contingencies it is putting in place to stabilise the financial future of its business. There has been no indication that administration is currently being considered for the Company. However, where this has arisen in the past with other providers, Administrators have generally continued to operate homes as going concerns. In the unlikely event of homes being closed in an unplanned manner, the Council would review the needs of all residents and seek alternative placements in care homes that would meet their needs.

3. The Council has a statutory duty to ensure that people in need of community care services have their needs met. This includes residents who fund their own care arrangements. The Council would then need to identify alternative placements which were capable of meeting the needs of individual residents. It is the responsibility of the Council to ensure the health, safety and wellbeing of those in residential care in our area.

NHS Leicestershire County and Rutland also fund a number of placements for people with entitlements to continuing health care and they would seek to make appropriate alternative arrangements for these residents.

4. It is impossible accurately to foresee events of this sort but the County Council does take steps to monitor residential care capacity and needs in the area. The particular provider to whom the Council’s homes are transferring has been the subject of robust financial vetting."

Mr Bill asked the following supplementary question:

"In view of the impact and concern that this will cause with the staff, residents and their families in the Hinckley area could the four County Councillors for Hinckley and Burbage be kept informed?"

Mr Sprason replied as follows:

"As always we will inform all members of developments, particularly the Ward members, where these issues raise themselves."

(R) MR MIAH CC asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-

"1. Please can the Leader detail what cuts in funding to voluntary sector organisations are planned in the financial years 2011-12 and 2012- 13?

2. Does he not agree that it makes little sense to cut money to voluntary organisations on the one hand only to reinstate a smaller figure for the 'big society'?

3. From the budget set aside for the 'big society' what amount of expenditure will be taken up on officer and administration costs?"

Mr Rushton replied as follows:

"1. The payments made to voluntary bodies will reduce by £2,368,981 from 2010/11 to 2011/12 and a further £352,738 in 2012/13. This represents a reduction of approximately 9% of the total payments made to voluntary bodies, which is significantly less than the reductions faced by the County Council. The list of the reductions is set out as Appendix 1 (to these minutes).

2. Mr Miah continues to confuse services commissioned by the County Council but delivered through VCS organisations such as Vista and Age Concern under the contracts listed below with the Big Society, which is about passing more control to communities themselves. We have allocated new funding for communities to use to make the improvements that they want not for organisations to deliver services that the County Council wants.

3. About 5% of the funding will be used to administer Participatory Budgeting for example, and to ensure appropriate financial management of the Council's funding. All the rest will be spent in the community."

96. POSITION STATEMENTS UNDER STANDING ORDER 8.

The Leader presented a position statement on the following matters:-

Equality Framework for Local Government Community Transport Big Society Community Budgets NHS Changes Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Local Government Resource Review Budget

The Lead Member for Children and Young People's Service presented a position statement on Academies.

A copy of each position statement is attached to these minutes.

97. REPORT OF THE CABINET:

(A) FINAL DRAFT LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN (LTP3) PROPOSALS.

It was moved by Mrs Pendleton, seconded by Mr Gillard and carried:-

"(a) That subject to (b) below the Local Transport Plan (LTP3) Proposals, as referred to in the report of the Cabinet, be approved;

(b) That the Director of Environment and Transport be authorised to make such minor adjustments to the Plan as he considers necessary prior to publication by the statutory deadline of 1 April 2011."

98. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING NOTICES OF MOTION:

(A) FUTURE OF EAST MIDLANDS CONGENITAL HEART CENTRE (EMCHC) - MR. D. R. PARSONS.

It was moved by Mr Parsons, seconded by Mr White and carried (unanimously):-

"(a) That it be noted that the NHS has recently launched a major public consultation exercise, ending on 1 July 2011, on the way children's congenital heart services should be provided in the future and that the outcome will determine the future of the East Midlands Congenital Heart Centre (EMCHC), based at Glenfield Hospital;

(b) That acknowledging that the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee is already on record as supporting the retention of the EMCHC, this Council agrees to make the strongest possible representations in favour of that option which retains this Centre (i.e. option A);

(c) That, in speaking up strongly for the retention of the Centre, this Council offers its fullest support to the EMCHC 'Hold on to our hearts' campaign and urges stakeholders and local people to do the same in responding to the consultation and attending the local consultation event to be held on 16 June."

(B) REDUCTION IN PHARMACY AND GP DISPENSING SERVICES - MR. N. J. RUSHTON.

It was moved by Mr Rushton, seconded by Mr Jones and carried (unanimously):-

"That the County Council, being concerned about any reduction in the availability of pharmacy and GP dispensing services to Leicestershire communities, notes that the Primary Care Trust is obliged to use national criteria in defining "rurality" in its current consultation about the future of service provision and the outcome may be a detrimental effect on many rural areas.

Therefore, the County Council:-

(a) requests an early meeting with the PCT, separate from the consultation engagement events, as part of an approach to Government to ensure that any unintended consequences of the exercise can be avoided; and

(b) requests that local Members of Parliament be informed of this motion and asked for their support."

2.30 pm – 5.10 pm CHAIRMAN 23 March 2011