Agenda Item No: 5 S

Democratic Support Service PO Box 136 County Hall Northampton NN1 1AT

MINUTES of the meeting of the NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL held at County Hall, Northampton on 17 March 2011 at 10.30am

PRESENT: Councillor Rosemary Bromwich (Chairman) Councillor Ron Sawbridge (Vice-Chairman)

Councillor John Bailey Councillor Stephen Legg “ Sally Beardsworth “ Chris Long “ Paul Bell “ Matt Lynch “ George Blackwell “ David Mackintosh " Catherine Boardman “ Christopher Malpas “ Robin Brown “ Carolyn Maxted “ Richard Church “ John McGhee “ Bob Civil “ Ken Melling “ Tony Clarke “ Andy Mercer “ Jenny Conroy “ Dennis Meredith “ David Dean “ Chris Millar “ Don Edwards “ Marion Minney “ Scott Edwards “ Gina Ogden OBE “ Brendan Glynane “ Steve Osborne “ André Gonzalez De Savage “ Bill Parker “ Andrew Grant “ Bhupendra Patel “ Michael Hallam “ Suresh Patel “ Rebecca Harding “ Ron Pinnock “ Jim Harker “ Rupert Reichhold “ Alan Hills “ Bob Scott “ Dudley Hughes “ Bob Seery “ David Hugheston-Roberts “ Judy Shephard “ Belinda Humfrey “ Ben Smith “ Bernard Ingram “ Heather Smith “ Joan Kirkbride “ Michael Tye “ Andrew Langley “ Allen Walker “ Phil Larratt “ Malcolm Waters “ Graham Lawman “ Alan Wright “ Derek Lawson MBE “

Also in attendance (for all or part of the meeting): Quentin Baker, LGSS Director of Legal Services Paul Blantern, Chief Executive Matt Bowmer, Head of Finance Tony Ciaburro, Corporate Director for Environment, Growth & Commissioning Martyn Emberson, Chief Fire Officer Sue Grace, Head of Customer & Cultural Services Stuart McCartney, Conservative Group Political Assistant

Charlie MacNally, Corporate Director for Health & Adult Social Services Laurie Gould, Deputy Monitoring Officer Paul Hanson, Committee Manager (Democratic Services) Jenny Rendall, Committee Assistant (Minutes)

And 33 members of the public.

16/11 Apologies for non-attendance:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Julie Brookfield, Mark Bullock, Michael Clarke, Richard Giddings, Matt Golby, Christopher Groome, Stan Heggs, Larry Henson, Jane Hollis, Sue Homer, Alan Pote, Chris Stanbra & Winston Strachan.

17/11 To Approve and Sign the Minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 24 February 2011:

RESOLVED that: the minutes of the meeting of Council held on Thursday 24 February 2011 were agreed subject to the following am to include Councillor John Bailey's attendance; and Page 16 - penultimate paragraph to read: 'At this point the Chairman adjourned the meeting to discuss the process for moving the amendments with members of the Labour Group'.

18/11 Notification of requests by members of the Public to address the Meeting:

Item 8 Mr William Barter Mr Jerry Marshall Mr Chris Stokes Mr Graham Long Cllr Rosie Herring (South Northants District Council) Mr David Edwards Mr Alan Seeds (Culworth Parish Council) Mr Nigel Galletly (Chipping Warden Parish Council) Mr Derek Lowe Mr Paul Withrington Professor Andrew McNaughton (HS2 Ltd)

Items 11(a), 11(d), 11(e), 11(g) & 13 Mr Mark James

Item 11(c) Mr Geoff Hornsey

19/11 Declarations of Interest by Councillors:

The following additional declarations were made: Item No. Councillor Type Nature 9 Sally Beardsworth Personal Trustee of the Community Law Service, Northampton & County 11(e) George Blackwell Personal Daughter is a Social Worker employed by NCC. Grand-daughter with a learning

disability. 9 Jenny Conroy Personal Board member of the Community Law Service, Northampton & County 8 Andrew Grant Personal Member of South Northants District Council. Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) Member for the Brackley East Division. 11(a) Alan Hills Personal Son is a retained firefighter 8 Ken Melling Personal NCC Representative for the Middleton Cheney Division 8 Chris Millar Personal Leader of Daventry District Council 11(a) Steve Osborne Personal Employs a retained firefighter 8 Ron Sawbridge Personal NCC Member for Brackley West 8 Allen Walker Personal Member of South Northants District Council

20/11 Chairman’s Announcements:

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting including the members of the public seated in the Blue Room who were able to watch the proceedings via a videol link.

A young student from the Corby Business Academy had been the first to receive the Gold Children’s University Award. The Chairman invited Mr Tom Woodward to the front of the chamber stating he had completed many activities outside of his normal curriculum, especially in art where he had a particular skill. He had created canvasses for the Art & Library Department, a short animation video on the problem of global warming and most recently carved a totem pole. He had never felt able to achieve a Bronze Award let alone the Gold. He had completed 100 hours of activities outside of his normal school day and would be attending the next graduation ceremony in July. The Chairman then presented Mr Woodward with his certificate, congratulating him on behalf of the Council.

The Chairman then gave details of the various events she had attended on behalf of the Council highlighting: Her thanks to all those who attended the Civic Service at which the sum of £542 was raised towards her two charities. The opening of Wiliam Wake House which was a medium secure facility at St Andrews Hospital which provided specialist services for men with various adult mental health issues. The Northamptonshire Carers Award Ceremony which that year was presented to a young carer. The Helen and Douglas House Candlemas Service at Christchurch Cathedral in Oxford to raise funds in support of supporting families of children and young adults with life shortening conditions. The Sea Cadets Centre in Beckets Park in February at which the Cadets were presented with letters of recognition before demonstrating their skills both in the water and on shore. An antiques valuation day would be held on Saturday 7 May 2011 in the Sessions House at which valuers would be able to provide valuations. Blue Badge Representatives would also be providing information on the history of the Sessions House to those waiting to receive a valuation.

The Deputy Chairman highlighted the 70th anniversary of the Banbury Squadron of the Air Training Corps (ATC) noting the ATC had 35,000 members in the country all aged 13-20 years in over 1,000 squadrons which were supported by over 10,000 staff and many civilians. They organised the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme and members could learn to fly gliders and power gliders, often flying solo at aged 17. 50% of air crew pilots and 40% of RAF officers were ex-cadets.

At the Chairman’s invitation, Councillor Marion Minney then read out a letter received from Mr Cyril Stewart, Honorary Chairman of the Gordon Roberts Memorial Trust, in support of the Performing Arts & Music Service. It acknowledged the support of NCC during a period of gradual withdrawal of funding which would enable the Service to form its own governance structures.

21/11 Petitions:

None received.

22/11 Presentations:

(a) Northamptonshire Young Leaders:

The Chairman introduced Adam Gravely, Hayley Hall, Jon Reynolds and Kelly Stubbs who gave a presentation on their work as Northamptonshire Young Leaders, highlighting the following: Apologies were given from the Northamptonshire Young Leader, Rachel Goulbourn who had exams at college. The role of the young leaders and members of the UK Youth Parliament (UKYP) had included representing young people to NCC, providing a positive image of young people and provide a voice to young people as constituents. The young leaders project had been a very successful and positive experience for all those who took part and Council was thanked for providing the opportunity. The sum of £25,000 had been provided as part of the project for the young leaders to allocate to groups/organisations that they felt supported the main issues for young people in the county. Following a countywide consultation and tendering process funds were provided to organisations addressing issues relating to stress, discrimination, support of young parents and political education as follows:  £9,000 to Northamptonshire Voluntary Youth Action (NVYA) for stress  £4,000 to NVYA for discrimination  £6,000 to FAIR in Rushden  £6,000 to a political education project in Rushmere Academy, Northampton. The Stress and discrimination projects would be countywide services. The political education project would assist young people in understanding how much politics affected their day to day life. It would include a day conference with a number of workshops and sessions and key note speakers. FAIR was a project supporting young parents, raising a positive image of young parents in the county and providing them with key skills such as understanding their baby’s needs. UKYP Members had benefitted from working at a local, regional and national level including participation in a debate in the House of Commons. This had included several key speakers in the issues young people had voted to be of most concern – sex education in schools and the war in Afghanistan. It was also broadcast by the BBC. The Prime Minister had noted the work of the UKYP as excellent and valued. Members welcomed the opportunity to promote the positive work of Northamptonshire and ensure young people were involved in democracy and making Northamptonshire a place where young people excelled.

The Young Leaders Group had held regular meetings and addressed real life issues. Their consultation had received 582 replies from young people. Good training had been provided and the process had been very well led with effective and enjoyable meetings.

Each of the youth members then stated what they had enjoyed and learned as follows: Adam felt he had developed many skills enabling him to actively participate in society. He had worked with a diverse group of people and excellent youth leaders. Jon felt he had gained a more mature outlook on the working of the county, its towns and the country. He had witnessed important decisions and how they were made. Kelly appreciated the opportunity to be treated like an adult, trusted with a large sum of money to allocate to worthy causes. She felt she had learned much about the commissioning process and achieved something that was beneficial to many. Hayley felt she had a greater understanding of the commissioning process and had enjoyed working on political education.

The young members concluded their presentation with thanks to the Leader of the Council who had championed the project and provided many opportunities for its members to take part in Council activities. At the Chairman’s invitation Councillor Joan Kirkbride congratulated the young leaders on their work and the way in which they had presented it. She felt they were a good example of the many fantastic and high achieving young people of Northamptonshire.

In answer to queries on the presentation the following was confirmed: The current Government had pledged to provide an opportunity for the UKYP to meet and debate topical issues in the House of Commons on a yearly basis. The meetings of the UKYP were currently held in private. However, this was something that was under review.

RESOLVED that: Council noted the work of the Young Leaders and members of the UK Youth Parliament.

(b) Northamptonshire Olympiad Programme

The Chairman then invited Cultural Policy and Planning Co-ordinator, Graham Callister to give a presentation on the activities planned that year as part of the Cultural Olympiad Programme, who highlighted the following: The programme was designed to showcase exceptional cultural projects, events and festivals that celebrated the country’s rich cultural heritage. It was designed to engage young people and families. External funding had been obtained from key partners including the Arts Council England, Legacy Trust UK and European Regional Development Fund. Stimulating and increasing participation in cultural activities also promoted local well-being and economic growth would be provided by attracting inward investment. ‘Clix’ was an innovative digital project which would marry up a series of images of young sporting people with heritage sites. ‘Mad about the Seasons’ included performances of Vivaldi’s Four Seasons as well as poetry by John Clare. The Northampton Carnival had been enhanced and there would be links with other carnivals.

Formula 1 Fashion at Silverstone would focus on the leather industry and motorsport and artists would model various items at events such as the Moto GP and Formula 1 Race. The flagship of the programme would be ‘Flow’ – a series of arts commissions designed to promote the county’s waterways. ‘Blaze’ - a massive participation dance project would be held in Northampton Market Square. There would be an arts festival in Daventry and a Victorian Fayre at Canons Ashby. ‘Shine’ – was a major heritage project including several of the county’s churches. The UK’s first ever night run would be held in Northampton. The yearly open weekend at Althorp would start the countdown to the Olympic Games and there were also plans for an Outdoor Film Festival that year. There were a whole host of additional activities during 2012 enabling residents to take part locally, regionally and nationally. There would also be activities for the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee and the website to promote the information would open later that month – www.northamptonshire2012.com.

In answer to queries on the presentation the following was confirmed: Funding had been available to support events during 2011. Although the group who organised the Divali Festival had not applied for funding the Northampton Borough Council (NBC) were reviewing ways in which that evening could be incorporated with the Northampton Night Run. Various churches in the county were keen to be part of the activity which projected historical images on to the side of their church in a similar way to the Luminaire Festival held in Durham the previous year. The proposed route for the torch relay had not yet been announced. However, informal discussions with various local authorities had begun. The Corby Highland Games were not part of the activities but various heritage and culture projects in Corby were part of the events taking place that year.

The following was also noted: It was noted the Arts Festival in Daventry had been very popular the previous year with over 1,500 visitors and a Daventry School had achieved the Inspire Charter Mark as part of that. There would be links this year with a presentation at Althorp. Visitors to the county were a vital part of the local economy and generated many jobs. All local councils had been very supportive of the events and everyone was encouraged to take part.

RESOLVED that: Council noted the various activities and events planned during 2011 as part of the Olympiad Programme.

23/11 High Speed Link 2 (HS2):

The Chairman invited members of the public to address Council as follows:

Mr William Barter felt the HS2 Line would benefit the County because: It would ‘free up’ the West Coast Main Line which currently carried many commuters from Northampton, South Northants and Daventry to London. Re-opening Blisworth Station on the new line would provide a local station for those from South Northants and Daventry who currently drove to stations in Milton Keynes or Rugby. This would also relieve traffic congestion on the A5 and provide a direct link to the HS2 Interchange Station for trains to the North and North East.

Diverting fast, long-distance trains onto the HS2 Line would enable the commuter service from Northampton and Milton Keynes to be increased by 50%. Network Rail predicted a 30% growth in train use as the local population grew. There were already more commuters from South Northants and Daventry than Kettering which had its own station. Whilst there might be fewer London – Birmingham trains on the West Coast Main Line after HS2, they could all stop at Milton Keynes and Rugby.

Mr Jerry Marshall highlighted the following concerns: HS2 would cost tax payers approximately £1,200 per household. The journey between London and Birmingham would only be 12 minutes shorter. The benefit of the new line had now been reduced from £67billion to £44billion and was mainly based on the fact much time would be saved. However, many commuters already used their journey time wisely via their laptops. Much of the jobs created would not be of long-term benefit as they would be related to the construction of the line and creation of retail parks around stations. 73% of the regeneration employment created would be based in London and not of any benefit to the North. High speed links in Europe were already failing because of a lack of demand but maintenance costs were high.

Mr Chris Stokes highlighted the following concerns: Reports on alternatives to the new route had been difficult to locate but one was the improvement of the West Coast Mainline. He felt this to be a cheaper option that could be undertaken in stages as and when the demand increased. However HS2 could not be used until completed – 2026 at the earliest. HS2 was also based on the assumption no other funding would be required to improve routes affected by it. Existing commuter services were already overcrowded but he felt a new flyover south of Milton Keynes with higher performance rolling stock would double the number of possible journeys. Commuter congestion, particularly in Milton Keynes would only worsen but because of the Government’s commitment to HS2 no improvements would be made to the West Coast Mainline to ease this congestion.

Mr Graham Long voiced the following concerns: Warwickshire County Council alongside neighbouring authorities in Stratford, Warwick and East Warwickshire had voted against HS2 because of the affects HS2 would have in their area. Residents in Northamptonshire were unlikely to use HS2 because there was no local access point to it. £750million spent during the current Parliament on this project was considered unreasonable, particularly at a time when councils across the country were expected to make huge savings in their budgets (£73million for NCC alone). There would be many years of disruption whilst the line was built. An estimated 8 years alone at Euston Station whilst it was rebuilt and tracks refitted to accommodate HS2. During this time current. train services would be reduced. Fares in Kent had risen to help pay for HS1.

South Northants District Councillor Rosie Herring highlighted the following concerns: Although the Government had opted for a route that ran North of Brackley and then west into Warwickshire, the Director of HS2 had recently confirmed any of the 7 possible routes originally presented could be used.

Residents losing their peaceful property would find it difficult to sell up and move away and no compensation would be paid for approximately 11 years. At first it was felt Northamptonshire might benefit economically from this project. However, many now believed investment would be ‘drawn away’ from the principal towns of the county as their routes became ‘downgraded lines’ but fares increased to recoup costs. HS1 had been sold the previous year at a loss. This project was considered too costly, particularly at a time when local authorities were having to cut basic levels of social care. Moving the millions of tonnes of earth dug up to create the route would require many heavy vehicles damaging the county’s roads and creating higher maintenance for the county councils responsible for them.

Mr David Edwards stated He felt the Business Case for HS2 was flawed. Councillor Ben Smith was thanked for providing the opportunity to meet with NCC to explore issues further. The Government had overlooked many environmental issues. Economic growth would be restricted as many of the jobs created were only connected to the construction of the route which would have no local access. Tax payers would be funding this project long after it had been completed but a cheaper alternative was to improve the current infrastructure.

Mr Alan Seeds from Culworth Parish Council stated: All provisional routes passed through Northamptonshire. He felt residents were not supported by NCC as the Council did not appear to have undertaken an adequate review into the project. All published reports predicted the benefits would be neutral if not slightly unbeneficial. Improvements to the West Coast Main Line would only be possible by increased capacity of the HS2 route. However, this lessening of the burden on the existing line would only be possible once HS2 had been completed. No benefits of HS2 would be possible until completion of the route.

Mr Nigel Galletly from Chipping Warden Parish Council voiced the following concerns: Chipping Warden Primary School was sited along the route of the line. Construction in that area was expected to start no earlier than 2018 but parents were already considering the need for an alternative school for their children. The Primary School was good but reduced numbers would lead to staff moving elsewhere and the eventual closure of the school. He therefore felt an investigation was required of NCC into the effects of HS2 on the viability of the school. The speed of the trains would create vibrations within the tunnels, particularly at the point of entry and exit. Chipping Warden would be affected by vibrations from trains entering and leaving and the possibility of a ‘sonic boom’ effect was unknown as there was currently no country operating trains at this speed. Carbon neutral emissions relied on electricity and generators would be required at several points along the line which could pose a health threat to those close by.

Mr Derek Lowe raised concerns as follows: The country’s own production of North Sea Oil and gas was reducing and current upheaval in the Middle East could have serious implications on the UK’s ability to obtain fuel.

A train travelling at 240 miles per hour (mph) had a drag 9 times greater than a train travelling at 80mph. The power required to operate it was 27 times higher at 13,500 horsepower. Data from the Carbon Trust indicated the faster train would create 203k of carbon dioxide per hour. 5.5 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide per train. In conclusion he felt speeding up trains, aeroplanes or any vehicle could only quicken an ‘energy crunch’.

Mr Paul Withrington raised the following concerns: The cost of providing 128 miles of track was £17billion. An approximate cost to every household in the land of £400. Creating a core network terminating in Manchester or Leeds would cost almost double. Extending it to Edinburgh or Glasgow would increase costs further. The initial route ending in Birmingham was expected to provide between £2.4 and £2.7 benefit for every £1 spent by the Government. However, this was based on passenger forecasts which he felt were too high as they appeared to rely on 18 full trains per hour. He also noted the passenger forecasts for HS1 were proved to be 2 or 3 times higher than the actual passenger numbers once open. The line would depend on building up local enterprise as current passenger numbers for Northampton indicated rail was not a major contributor to the town’s activities. He felt the county’s residents were unlikely to use it but the tax burden would destroy many jobs.

Professor Andrew McNaughton, Chief Engineer of HS2 Ltd stated the following: HS2 Ltd was an independent organisation set up by the Government to review the case for high speed rail and should there be one, to present an initial route. The Government had reviewed its findings with other independent experts as well as their own Treasury. As the Treasury was known to have an extremely conservative approach he felt the business case to also be very conservative. Since publication some key changes had been made to the route to include links with Heathrow and the roadshow would present facts rather than promote a particular route. Facts at the roadshow on noise pollution had been provided by an independent leading acoustics company. The consultation had not been completed and residents were asked to engage with HS2 Ltd as much as possible. From his previous role as Engineering Director for Network Rail, responsible for route improvements made from the year 2000 he knew further incremental change on the most densely used railway in the world would have an incredible impact on those living along the route of the West Coast Mainline. The transfer of traffic to a new line was accepted by the railway industry as the only way forward. He noted the experience at Euston of overcrowded trains would only increase but felt transferring traffic to a new line would enable those counties affected to claim back the West Coast Mainline.

The Chairman then invited Councillor Ben Smith to introduce the discussion paper (copies of which had been previously circulated) who stated the following: This discussion required no formal decision but would inform the Cabinet when discussing a report in May of that year. He recognised all those using the West Coast Mainline would be affected by HS2. When first discussing the proposals in May 2010 Cabinet supported the principal of a high speed rail network in the UK but objected strongly to the published routes and felt a route that minimalised the effect on the landscape, local amenities and the environment.

Cabinet members had decided to listen and not take part in that day’s debate, preferring to take part in the Cabinet debate in May after hearing the views put forward during this discussion. Comments in paragraph 3.6 of the report were no longer relevant as the summary document had been updated to include information from the government consultation made available the previous month. Information would be provided throughout the county’s libraries. He had attended a meeting at the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) with the Secretary of State for Transport, Philip Hammond and other local authorities affected by the proposals. He had also received many e-mails and held meetings with representatives from South Northants Against Growth (SNAG) and South Northamptonshire District Council to exchange information. NCC Officers had also provided considerable information. Local media reports had stated NCC was the only local authority (LA) to support HS2 but the fact was that whilst NCC supported the principal of HS2 it did not support the proposed route. The provision of a ‘fighting fund’ was also something NCC felt unable to provide as this would set a precedent that would be difficult to as the county was affected by many issues and it would be unfair on other groups opposing some of these issues.

Councillors commented as follows: Reference was made to villages and towns listed in paragraph 7.3.10 of the summary document as being affected by the route and councillors were asked to consider the impact on the residents in them. It was noted no other train in Europe travelled at the proposed speed of 240mph. HS1 trains travelled at 186mph and many felt this faster speed was not necessary. It was felt following the route of the M40 would disrupt fewer people. Many felt passenger forecasts were high as they equated to a full train of 1,100 passengers every 4 minutes. The impact on Euston for 7 or 8 years would have a huge impact on the London Underground as well as the many commuters travelling from Northampton. Concerns were raised that like HS1, HS2 would eventually be sold at a loss. A continual dialogue between those proposing the route and those affected by it was considered to be vital to the consultation process. One way of achieving this was via the forums organised by Councillor Ben Smith. It was noted the relevant ministers of state had promised to attempt to resolve issues with local authorities wherever possible. Some felt the critical comments on HS1 contained in the report were very informative. Some voiced concerns that cabinet members should take part in the debate to demonstrate their own opinions to back benchers and the public. It was felt the public in particular deserved to hear these opinions. Councillors were urged to share the feelings of their constituents and reject the proposals. Whilst many accepted the need for a high speed rail-link, the proposed route appeared to cause much disruption and was over-priced. Concerns were raised that Euston Station would not be able to accommodate the additional numbers of trains using the terminus and would therefore add to the journey time as trains awaited access to a platform. It was noted that as a geographical crossroads in England, Northamptonshire was likely to affected by whatever route was chosen for HS2. This had been proven in the past with the creation of the original railway, the Grand Union Canal and motorways. National interests had affected these as they would HS2.

Concerns were raised regarding fuel particularly with a vulnerable middle east and need to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. Some voiced concerns that issues with the West Coast Mainline could not be addressed by simply diverting traffic to the new HS2. It was noted the benefits of any new development would not be realised for approximately 25 years and even then Northamptonshire was unlikely to be a beneficiary. Many also felt residents deserved to receive more immediate benefits from any proposals. The cost of the project was considered to be too big a tax burden on the public, particularly in the current economic climate. Concerns were raised about the loss of agricultural land. Some raised concerns about CO2 emissions which would be increased. Immediate and continued investment in the West Coast Mainline was suggested as a suitable alternative to HS2. It was felt by some an investigation into the effects on freight could be undertaken and it was suggested more freight could be diverted onto the rail networks. Concerns were raised for householders who would struggle to sell their homes because the property could be affected by HS2 or once construction began, by its close proximity to the route. It was therefore felt a decision regarding the proposed route should not be delayed to avoid the uncertainties it could create. It was noted the county had benefitted from changes to the existing rail system but there were significant issues and it was now necessary to consider a new alternative in the form of a new modern line. Because the route wherever it was sited would affect people, there was a need to highlight issues as soon as possible and alleviate uncertainty. Some felt a decision of this importance should be made by Full Council, enabling all councillors to take part. Further information was required in terms of safety including stoppage times for faster trains and the possibility and impact of accidents. It was noted the Cabinet meeting of 10 May 2011 at which cabinet members would make their opinions known would be held in public. It was also noted progress did bring disruption and councillors were encouraged to seek the views of their constituents to pass back to the consultation. Concerns were raised that because the project was a long-term project, a future government could decide to withdraw it. It was therefore suggested the project should be designed in stages thus enabling benefits to be gained from the project should it be withdrawn before completion. Some felt the project was important for the economic regeneration and growth of Northamptonshire. There was a need to also support the communities affected by the proposed route ensuring all possible mitigation was undertaken. Concerns were raised that the proposed route was not consistent with the Council’s aims of becoming a cleaner, greener council. It was noted the route would cut through good arable farmland whilst ruining the lives of the residents it affected. It was felt a proposal that provided better services and provision for Northamptonshire before the final completion date of the line. There was a need to plan for the future and the Council had a wider remit to consider the long-term strategic case for the rail network affects across the whole county. It was noted some of the issues in the current transport infrastructure were the consequence of earlier decisions and an example was given of the decision to turn large parts of the A14 into a dual carriageway. This was now proving to an inadequate measure but at one time serious consideration was given to maintaining a single carriageway.

Further investigation into historical sites affected by the route were required as the county did not wish to lose any of his heritage. Concerns were raised about possible fare increases to pay for the work as there were already many residents restricted in how and where they travelled because of high rail fares. It was suggested the issue be further debated at the next meeting of Full Council giving councillors the opportunity to consider fully the points raised that day and any further information provided by officers, HS2 Ltd and the public

In summary Councillor Ben Smith thanked all councillors and members of the public for their contribution to an interesting debate. He noted there would be time to have a further debate at the meeting of Full Council in May as a final response to the consultation was not required until July. All members had the right to also respond to the consultation as an individual. He thanked officers for the work undertaken in providing background for the paper and he promised to continue organising the meetings with all interested parties. The Environmental Impact Assessment would not be available until the Bill was presented to Parliament.

24/11 Questions, if any, to the Chair 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 the following: As shown in the minutes for 25 November 2010 (copies of which had been previously circulated) the Committee had considered the previous year and any points arising from the ISA260 produced by the external auditors, KPMG. At the meeting held in February 2011 the Committee had discussed work for the forthcoming year, matters arising from the previous year’s audit and changes in reporting requirements which would be significant because of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Compliance with IFRS would require a lot of additional work for the Council’s Finance Department but the deadlines would remain the same. Much had been undertaken to restate the 2009-2010 Accounts to comply with IFRS and comments from the external auditors on how well they had been prepared would assist the Department when preparing the 2010-2011 Accounts. Progress made in internal audit projects would be discussed at the Committee’s meeting in May. A significant improvement had been made in the accounts on the previous year. Despite concerns about a reduction in staff in the Finance Department, staff had undertaken an excellent job. The only items brought forward from 2008-2009 were those expected as part of a longer term alteration. Relatively few issues arising from the current year’s audit was evidence of the Department’s work.

In answer to queries, the Independent Chairman confirmed the following: He was not aware of any plans to abolish the Audit Committee and it was later noted the Constitution Working Group had recently discussed a number of new committee structures and agreed there was a need for the Audit Committee. Internal Audit had reviewed the schools balances and reserves because of concerns raised. However, much of the reserves were attributed to various projects such as grants for specific capital projects not yet completed, or for salaries affected by the pay and benefits review. Whilst the figure as a whole appeared large, when taking each constituent part, very little excess had been found and only 2 schools had slightly more than the permitted surplus of 8% of their total budget. A copy of the report presented to the Audit Committee was available

on the Council’s website. The Audit Committee was responsible for ensuring the figures presented were accurate. Although the Committee did not review how directorates monitored their own spending external auditors did look at the sustainability of budgets and the medium term plan. Cabinet was provided with monthly financial reports. It was noted the Finance, Improvement & Performance Working Group also received monthly financial reports. Audit was a technically complicated process and members of the Committee were required to be able to challenge internal and external auditors on the work undertaken and ensure proposals were enacted upon. One large Audit Committee across several authorities would complicate the work further. However, one large Local Government Shared Service (LGSS) audit department reporting to 2 Audit Committees could also confuse the work and a merger of various audit committees would be a sensible approach. The Audit Committee was not concerned with how the audit plan was enacted; only that it was enacted. Internal Audit reviewed internal controls to ensure they worked as well as undertaking special investigations. The Committee was concerned there was an ethos to have properly produced plans and sufficient staff to ensure the work was carried out. If a major investigation was required, it was undertaken in additional to the usual work. However, should this affect the Council’s ability to adequately prepare accounts, the external auditors would raise their costs to reflect the additional work they had undertaken to ascertain all of the information required. Both LA’s in the LGSS would benefit from their partner’s skills. NCC had not undertaken an IT audit for 4/5 years and this was a major issue because of the Council’s reliance on IT systems. Services had been commissioned from the private sector to undertake this but as Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) had recently undertaken an audit, the work could gradually be taken over by colleagues in CCC. The interface between internal and external audit was vital to ensure issues were timely and adequately addressed and the hard work undertaken in the Finance Department was reflected in the significant reduction in audit costs for that year.

RESOLVED that: Council noted the update on the work of the Audit Committee.

25/11 Opposition Priority Business:

At the Chairman’s invitation, Councillor Brendan Glynane moved the following motion:

‘This Council notes that the Secretary of State for Local Government, Eric Pickles MP, has announced that provisions may be included in the Localism Bill to stop ‘unreasonable cuts’ to the voluntary sector. As a result of this new and additional information this Council calls on the Administration to rethink cuts to voluntary sector funds and develop workable solutions to ensure that the voluntary sector is able to play a full and active role in Northamptonshire.

Accordingly, this Council notes that the budget as passed on 24 February contained massive cuts to funds for voluntary groups including a £4million reduction to preventative services.

This Council believes that these cuts to the voluntary sector are unreasonable and expresses concern for the future of Northamptonshire’s third sector.’

In moving the motion Councillor Glynane stated he considered this to be an important issue and referred to the Prime Minister’s promise before the last General Election not to

‘leave anyone behind’ and to protect the poorest and weakest when considering cuts that any Administration would be required to make because of the current economic situation. Councillor Glynane then referred to funding cuts to voluntary organisations and communities and he felt the budget approved in February did not protect the most vulnerable members of society and was not consistent with the Government’s view of the ‘Big Society’. He asked members to consider the Government’s threat to use the law against councils making big cuts to charitable funding, and support this motion.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Marion Minney.

Councillors commented as follows: It was noted a reduced local government settlement had caused the Council to make £73million savings and all LA’s would have to be imaginative in their methods for providing services. This imaginative approach had been adopted by the Council for some years. Via LGSS the Council was already sharing back office support. Some felt the way in which the Council worked with the voluntary sector indicated the sector locally was beginning to prepare for responsibility and leadership. It was noted the Council had invested £30million in the voluntary sector whilst making the required £73million savings in its own budget. Some felt that as the budget had been very robustly debated through the consultation process and at the previous meeting of Full Council it was now time to consider implementation. Reference was made to the ‘YouChoose’ campaign which enabled residents to speak to councillors in person in their own local town via the roadshows and over 20,000 people had contacted the Council via the website. Scrutiny had been very involved with the consultation and many residents had addressed Council at its most recent meetings. It was noted members of the Cabinet were continuing to meet with Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander to improve the Council’s settlement. Reference was made cuts to the Northamptonshire Branch of Age Concern and a letter from their Director who stated the proposed cut of 10% of their funding would make it even harder for them to provide what was considered to be a vital service to Northamptonshire. Some felt it was reasonable that Council reconsidered a vital part of its budget, especially as the Council would need the voluntary sector more than ever in the current times of the ‘Big Society’. It was also felt this would demonstrate to the public that the Council cared. It was noted the population was growing and ageing and with age came increased development of disease in later life. It was also noted there were significant differences in life expectancy depending on where in the county a resident lived. Some felt services could not be adequately maintained when the Council’s commissioners of preventative services would be reduced by 30 and the number of adult social workers would be reduced by 50. It was felt by some that the most vulnerable people in society were paying for the mistakes of banks and the poorer were becoming poorer whilst the rich became richer. Both alternative budgets had reversed cuts to areas which the political groups presenting them felt gave particular support to the most vulnerable members of society. It was noted advice centres in the county would continue to receive funding. However, there was an interim period between the end of the current year’s grant and start of whatever replaced it. During this 3-6 month period the organisations would have no funding and many would have to make their staff redundant. The service in some instances would cease completely leaving those requiring the support with no means for obtaining it. There was therefore, a need for a transition

fund to assist these organisations to provide their service. It was also noted there had been a £50 charge on all those entering the country as an immigrant when they presented their passport. The money received was used to fund voluntary sector projects and whilst this type of funding had ceased the £50 charge had not. Concerns were raised about cuts to the NFRS which was a very valuable and life- saving service. It was noted a summit organised by the Council the previous year had been supported by over 300 representatives of the voluntary sector who discussed the ‘Big Society’, what it meant and how it would support Northamptonshire. Some felt there would be a great deal of opportunity for innovative LA’s to work together as powers were devolved from Central Government. Concerns were raised that the motion did not provide information on how withdrawing the cuts would be funded. In order to provide the funds, other areas would need a cut in budget and this information was not provided. Some felt the £2million economic investment could be better used by the voluntary sector. It was noted personalised budgets had given people greater freedom to choose the services they provided and some had chosen not to access Age Concern services. Some felt the Council gave much support to the voluntary sector. With funding available to Local Infrastructure Organisations which supported the voluntary sector, small start-up grants for new community groups, grants for larger schemes and the Youth Small Grants Scheme which would continue to be funded. It was felt by some that the transition from grant funding to long-supported organisations to commissioning would provide greater sustainability and make the Council’s intentions and aims much clearer. Many considered the voluntary sector in the county to be thriving as it consisted of many professional and expert organisations.

In reply Councillor Glynane stated he felt the motion was about enabling the voluntary sector to play and full and effective role in Northamptonshire. He would be interested in receiving the details if another Big Society event was arranged by the Administration.

RESOLVED that: Upon the vote the motion was rejected.

26/11 Business items (including budget and policy framework items, appoints and reports from Overview & Scrutiny Committees):

(a) Northamptonshire Fire & Rescue Service (NFRS) Draft Strategic Plan 2010-2013, Integrated Risk Management Plan (IRMP):

At the Chairman’s invitation, Mr Mark James addressed Council on various agenda items highlighting the following: Concerns were raised about the apparent onerous paperwork involved in the procurement process. Local firefighters were praised for the methods they had used when attending a recent boating incident. It was suggested refuse centres offer to buy aluminium cans by weight and scrap yards be encouraged to accept old batteries. Alterations in the bus route for service number 86 did not assist those who had a need to arrive in Northampton before 8.45am. Concerns were raised that the public had only been informed of the new timetable the week before implementation of the new timetable.

Concerns were raised that many boatyards and the skills contained within them were being lost as the land on which they stood was worth more to developers. However, in his opinion the need for them was increasing as more people opted to use waterways for pleasure. It was suggested a train station be created to the west of the M1 Motorway between junctions 15 and 15A. A further suggestion was to have an open forum at the beginning of every meeting of Full Council to enable members of the public to raise issues of concern and that this be extended to include all district and borough councils in the county. It was felt extended some training opportunities to members of the public would assist them to better understand local democratic processes.

The Chairman then invited the Chief Fire Officer, Martyn Emberson to give a presentation who highlighted the following with regard to work undertaken to date: The IRMP set out the NFRS’ performance for the past year as well as plans for development in the next 3 years. In 2002 the Health and Safety Executive stated the service must improve. In 2005 the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) rated NFRS as weak and a Monitoring Board was installed. In 2009 the Service was discharged from this Monitoring Board. The NFRS had reduced the cost per head population of the Service whilst increasing organisational performance and there had also been a dramatic downturn in the number of incidents attended. The number of non-fatal accidents in fires had reduced as had the number of deliberate fires within the community. Whilst the number of deliberate fires within commercial properties had reduced, further improvement was required in the number of accidental fires as these figures had remained consistent. Projects with youth was leading the way and young people were becoming more involved in defining how best to protect communities. New methods for fighting fires developed by NFRS had been recognised by the European Union and the NFRS was leading the way nationally in terms of road traffic collisions. The Cabinet Member for Customers & Communities had been invited by the Prime Minister to lead the national ‘Fire Futures’ review. Everything had been achieved by consistently focusing on strategic objectives and partnership work (particularly with the voluntary sector). The cost of the service had fallen dramatically whilst ensuring the county was safer than ever from fire.

Turning to the future the Chief Fire Officer highlighted the following: Reference was made to the key areas for the future highlighted in the report, the most significant of which was the need to update the NFRS ageing control room. The Command Development Centre not only trained firefighters but also provided a small income. There had been a thorough consultation over 12 weeks during which time, the IRMP was examined by Scrutiny and many young people contributed via Facebook and Twitter. All elected councillors in the district, borough and county council were provided with a copy of the IRMP and request to respond. 340 responses had been received, 247 of which from members of the public, 19 from staff, 11 from businesses and 9 from community groups. 93% stated the IRMP was very clear and easy to understand and 90% were satisfied with the progress made and plans for the future.

At the Chairman’s invitation Councillor Andre Gonzalez de Savage proposed the report (copies of which were previously circulated) stating the following: NFRS led by the Chief Fire Officer were thanked for delivering a good report in

difficult times. There had been unprecedented challenges and despite significant cuts the NFRS benefitted from committed and loyal staff. The NFRS was the fifth most economic Fire Service in the country and worked with many partners in the voluntary sector. The best equipment, resources, staff and volunteers worked effectively. There would be opportunities for further development via the Council’s new Target Operating Model that would be discussed later that day which would provide opportunities to link the protection with the wider community as part of a wider community protection remit.

The report was seconded by Councillor Andy Mercer who confirmed the Fire & Rescue Scrutiny Sub-Committee had reviewed it thoroughly and copies had also been provided to scrutiny committees at the various borough and district councils.

Councillors commented as follows: Firefighters were thanked for the way in which they had attended a recent fire in Northampton including the way they had re-assured traumatised residents during and following the fire. Councillors were encouraged to arrange visits to the various fire stations around the county to view the equipment and how expertly fire teams worked. Central Government was expected to make an announcement on proposed changes to fire services across the country. Concerns were raised that the Council should discuss these as soon as they were announced as they could result in the creation of a separate Community Protection Authority (CPA) responsible for various services including those relating to fire, environmental health, traffic control and trading standards, all of which were currently provided by various LA’s across the county. It was noted NFRS undertook many preventative services such as providing fire safety checks within the home that assisted in reducing the number of fires and fatalities in the county.

In reply Councillor Gonzalez de Savage referred to the many visitors to the county and the NFRS ability to respond to calls for assistance quickly. Since June 2010 the NFRS had worked very widely and closely throughout the public and voluntary sectors as well as with the public in order to provide the best model for fighting fires and protecting people. The CPA would provide more resilience to public funding by sharing costs and resources and create better links between the various organisations responsible for public protection. A decision from Central Government was expected later that month and he would provide a further update once this had been received.

RESOLVED that: Council adopted the NFRS Draft Strategic Plan 2010-2013, 2011, Year 1 Update & Review, IRMP.

(b) Abolition of the Regional Management Board:

At the Chairman’s invitation Councillor Andre Gonzalez de Savage proposed this report (copies of which had been previously circulated) stating the Board had been created in 2004 between 5 local fire authorities. Whilst it had undertaken some good work, there was now the opportunity for a more localised agenda and work with all 9 of Northamptonshire’s neighbouring fire authorities. NCC also contributed £100,000 per year towards the Board’s costs and this cost could be reduced by different working arrangements. Whilst the Board had agreed disbanding was the best option, each of the member authorities were required to formally approve this before it could be disbanded.

The report was seconded by Councillor Andy Mercer who stated he could not see any benefits to the member authorities of the Board on which this arrangement had been imposed by a previous Government. He felt there would be greater benefits from liaison with all of the county’s neighbouring authorities.

RESOLVED that: Council approved the recommendation of the Regional Management Board that the Board should be dissolved with effect from 31 March 2011.

(c) Northamptonshire Minerals & Waste Development Framework:

The Chairman invited Mr Geoff Hornsey to address Council who stated he represented Ringstead Parish Council and approximately 1,500 residents who had opposed the Framework because of the accumulative impact on the environment. He felt insufficient consideration had been given to the impact on residents which could be felt for a further 20 years as the capacity of the parish’s quarry was increased. He felt a better location had been proposed by a major developer on the county’s boundary with Lincolnshire as it would involve an existing limestone site with at least 3 times the capacity and limestone of a greater quality. Limestone in Ringstead was of poor quality and relatively difficult and expensive to extract. At least 2 potential developers had withdrawn from the opportunity to use the site and the most recent interest had been expressed via the landowner only days before this meeting and accompanied by a 1-page business case. Whilst the planning document could not be changed after the Inspector’s approval he felt Council could re-consider its adoption as the industry was not indicating an urgency need for additional resources. He therefore suggested it be referred to the Council’s development officers for further review.

The Chairman then invited Councillor Heather Smith to propose the report (copies of which had been previously circulated) who stated the following: The Development Plan Documents were the culmination of between 4 and 5 years work and had been thoroughly scrutinised by the Inspector. They had also been discussed by Cabinet and officers were thanked for their hard work in producing them. Whilst she understood the concerns of residents living in Ringstead, the Documents covered the wider area of the whole county the item concerned with the quarry in Ringstead could only be amended if the whole document was rejected. However, she felt the situation with that particular quarry could be monitored. It was also noted residents in Ringstead had been part of the consultation. Northamptonshire was only the second country to have an inspector approve it’s minerals planning documents and only the third in the country to have the documents relating to waste passed.

The report was seconded by Councillor Ben Smith who stated he felt this subject was often controversial but a long process had been carried out very thoroughly to produce the documents. The documents covered the core strategy, locations for mineral and waste development and controls and management. He felt the Inspector’s approval was an accolade to the hard work of the officers involved in producing them.

Councillors commented as follows: Alternative sites had been considered to the Ringstead Quarry including one at Eastern Lodge and one close to RAF Wittering. However, at the time of this suggestion, the area was subject to flight operations and the site therefore unsuitable. It was noted officers could monitor the Ringstead site and any future opportunities

to reconsider its operation could be considered.

In reply Councillor Heather Smith confirmed she had noted comments and suggestions to review operations at the Ringstead Quarry in the future.

RESOLVED that: Council adopted the Locations for Minerals & Waste Development, Development Plan Documents.

(d) Northamptonshire’s Third Local Transport Plan (LTP3):

The Chairman invited Councillor Ben Smith to propose the report (copies of which had been previously circulated) who stated: Under the terms of the Transport 2000 Act this was a statutory document. However, the Transport Act 2008 had removed the requirement to review the document once every 5 years. The document was also no longer required to form bids for funding as the Government had now introduced a funding formula. Requirements of the document included a Statement of the Council’s transport policies and plan for implementing them. There was a need to have a Plan in place for 1 April 2011 which was inconvenient timing as there was uncertainty about funding and developments. Therefore, Cabinet had agreed the Council should have an interim Plan with a formal Plan from 2012. Consultation had taken place with the public and funding had been confirmed for various improvement schemes including improvements to Harborough Road in Northampton at the Cock Hotel Junction and continued improvements to the Safer Routes to Schools Schemes. The Plans would be published on the Council’s website.

The report was seconded by Councillor Heather Smith who stated the following: She agreed an interim plan would enable the Council to have a plan of action during the transitional period it would be in during the forthcoming year. In response to comments made earlier regarding a the Number 86 Bus Route she could confirm the current operator had decided it could no longer continue to provide the service and terminated their contract. Something that was completely outside of the Council’s control.

Councillors commented as follows: The improvements to Harborough Road were welcomed but concerns were raised about the disruption this would cause as there had been disruption during the current year from the replacing of Gas Pipes in the area. A request was made for officers to work with developers in the Buckton Fields area to achieve improvements in that area.

RESOLVED that: Council: 1) Adopted the Interim Local Transport Plan as part of the Council’s budget and policy framework; and 2) Noted the consultation responses received.

(e) New Organisational Structure relating to the new Target Operating Model:

The Chairman then invited Councillor Jim Harker to propose the report (copies of which had been previously circulated) who stated the following: The new Target Operating Model (TOM) had been created in response to the new responsibilities of councillors in respect of health and changes in the way the

Council operated. The sum of £1.8million had been saved through the Effective Leadership Review and this further development of the Council’s organisational structure would add a further £700,000 of savings. Additional savings had been, and would continue to be achieved through LGSS.

The report was seconded by Councillor Bill Parker who felt the TOM would ensure the senior management team was more effective in managing the demands of Council.

Councillors commented as follows: Concerns were raised that it was too soon to understand the effect of cuts implemented just one month previously and therefore also too soon to understand if the new TOM could be successful. Concerns were raised that more information was required on how the new structure would work, how services below it would be structured and how many further redundancies would be required. It was noted the TOM had been discussed by the Personnel Committee who had felt it was an improvement on the present structure. Concerns were raised it could be confusing to clients receiving a service from the Council.

At the Chairman’s invitation the Chief Executive answered queries on the structure as follows: The TOM would evolve alongside the demands on services. The Council was on a journey to improve its role as a commissioner of services. The Director for People Services was a role designed to include the new significant role Council would be undertaking in linking health and social services, to ensure ownership was in the correct areas for various services. When discussed with inspectors currently undertaking a Safeguarding Inspection of the Council they had stated they felt comfortable with the new arrangements. There had been a large number of proposals for efficiencies in the recent budget involving many people and organisational changes. A TOM Board, chaired by the Chief Executive had been created and new structures would be discussed at that Board as and when they were developed. There was a current focus on specialist targeted services in social care. The Customer and Communities Directorate would ensure the Council worked alongside partners and the voluntary sector to provide services where they were required. The Director would continue to focus on the customer services strategy, which included the Customer Service Centre, Libraries and website. The Council’s website was in the top 4 of all county councils and in the top 20 of all councils. The Communications and Marketing Department would work alongside Customer Services to ensure an integrated and consistent service to the public. The Council currently spent £20million on prevention services in various areas. This would now be brought under one Director to ensure further integration and consistency in that area. Schools would become part of the Customer & Community Services Directorate ensuring they played an active part in the universal provision of services required. Environment, Transport & Development would also include the development of the prosperity agenda, without which there would be a greater demand on the Council’s services. The Chief Fire Officer would report directly to the Chief Executive and would focus on a Public Protection Authority which would include issues such as flood

prevention and road safety. Various resources would be integrated under an Assistant Director for Business Intelligence & Performance enabling greater clarity when planning for the whole organisation. He felt it important that the Leadership Support & Democratic Services role reported directly to him to ensure councillors were supported to undertake their leadership role, ownership of democratic processes and that officers delivered the agenda of the councillors they served.

In response, Councillor Harker stated the new structure was specifically designed to meet the demands of the Council’s new duties and responsibilities. As a smaller structure it would provide improved value for money particularly in senior levels. He also confirmed he would reconsider the special responsibilities of his fellow councillors and make recommendations to Council at its Annual General Meeting in May.

RESOLVED that: Council: 1) Agreed the new organisational structure for the County Council as set out with the report; 2) Noted the outline of potential savings resulting from the Tier 1 & 2 proposals and the indicative timetable and approach to implementation and the proposed appointment and selection process outlined within the report; 3) Agreed that the further review based on the principles and decisions outlined in the report continued; and 4) Noted the transfer of Property and Asset Management Services to LGSS and agreed the amendments to the Constitution in respect of the transfer of Property and Asset Management Services to LGSS and delegated the power to finalise these amendments and to make any other required amendments and to determine the date of implementation of the amendments, to the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Constitution Working Group and the Chief Executive.

(f) Acceptable Use of Computing Facilities Policy for Councillors (AUP):

At the Chairman’s invitation Councillor Joan Kirkbride proposed this report (copies of which had been previously circulated) stating amendments had been made following consultation. Whilst IT was very important to all councillors, it was used in varying ways. It was therefore important to ensure it was used legally and properly.

The report was seconded by Councillor Michael Tye who stated the Councillor Focus Group had reviewed the Policy on several occasions and the requirements within it to be very reasonable.

RESOLVED that: Council 1) Agreed the Acceptable Use of Computing Facilities Policy for Councillors (AUP) (Appendix 1) as amended by the Councillors IT Focus Group and recommended by the Standards Committee and the Monitoring Officer; and 2) Delegated the responsibility for amending the Constitution to include the AUP to the Monitoring Officer.

(g) Councillor Development Annual Report:

The Chairman then invited Councillor Joan Kirkbride to propose the report (copies of which had been previously circulated) who stated she felt training and development was very important for all councillors, particularly in their first year following elections. She confirmed there would be an on-going programme of training available to all councillors.

The report was seconded by Councillor Gina Ogden who asked councillors to complete their feedback forms to inform officers of the areas where they required advice and training.

Councillors commented as follows: It was suggested that because of the current economic climate, the remit of the Steering Group be expanded to include monitoring of costs and identifying opportunities to maximise use of resources. In noting the success of a training workshop offered that day both before the meeting and during lunch that further sessions could be arranged around meetings of Full Council.

In reply Councillor Kirkbride thanked councillors for their helpful suggestions.

RESOLVED that: Council noted the Councillor Development Annual Report and endorsed the work being undertaken by the Councillor Development Steering Group to continually develop councillors.

28/11 Cabinet Business:

At the Chairman’s invitation the Leader of the Council, Councillor Jim Harker introduced the report (copies of which had been previously circulated) answering queries on the report as follows: Investigations undertaken into the effectiveness of the Council Chamber microphones had identified an issue with how they were used. Issues with the side speakers which were elegant and unobtrusive but not so good at projecting sound would be investigated further. The voluntary sector was playing an increasingly vital role in society and therefore the new Northamptonshire Enterprise Partnership would include representatives from the voluntary sector as well as from small and medium sized enterprises. Councillors Jim Harker and Bill Parker had recently accompanied one of the county’s MP’s at a meeting with Treasury Chief Secretary, Danny Alexander to discuss particular issues experienced in Northamptonshire. Councillor Harker had felt this meeting was successful as the Treasury Chief Secretary had confirmed he had not fully understood the implications to Northamptonshire of the data supplied by the Office of National Statistics which was already dated by 3 years but would be 6 years out of date by the end of the current Financial Settlement. There was a very regular bus service to Chester Farm which would include a bus stop once the site was open. There was also a very good network of footpaths from Irchester and Wellingborough. The eligibility criteria for those receiving services from social care and health had not changed. They would experience improved services as a result of the integration of various health services. It was felt the new arrangements in management of public health would also provide the opportunity for greater transparency in how funds were spent and identifying where services were needed.

RESOLVED that: Council noted the report by the Leader of the Council

29/11 Scrutiny Business:

At the Chairman’s invitation the Scrutiny Champion, Councillor Allen Walker introduced the report (copies of which had been previously circulated) highlighting the following.

Since his last report scrutiny had been very busy scrutinising the budget. He felt the new TOM would provide many improvements and encouraged all councillors to continue to be involved in scrutiny which would be aligned to this new model. This new structure would be introduced at the next meeting of Full Council and will be available for scrutiny via the various scrutiny focus groups. He felt the new structure would create greater opportunities for more effective scrutiny in the future. In future the budget would be scrutinised on a monthly basis enabling greater monitoring. Committee members would also be trained in performance and budget controls. As Chairman of the East Midlands Scrutiny Network he invited all councillors to its next meeting to be held the following day in the Council Chamber.

At the Chairman’s invitation Councillor Ogden confirmed the Health & Adult Social Services Scrutiny Committee had formed a working party to discuss the White Paper on the Health Service. They would be focussing on how local authorities could work with GP’s, particularly in areas of prevention. The Chairmen of the county’s Local Strategic Partnerships had been invited to take part in this and several GP’s had also joined the group.

In answer to a query on the report, the Scrutiny Champion stated Equality Impact Assessments would continue to be part of the budget scrutiny process which would commence at the next meeting of the Finance, Improvement & Performance Working Group. The Group would also receive performance reports.

RESOLVED that: Council noted the report by the Scrutiny Champion.

30/11 Questions if any, to the Chair of the Northamptonshire Police Authority:

None received.

31/11 Urgent Business:

There was none.

32/11 Exempt Business

There was none.

There being no further business the Chairman closed the meeting at 4.25pm.

Jenny Rendall Democratic Support March 2011

Chairman’s Signature:- Date:-