At a meeting of the LEICESTER CITY COUNCIL held at the Town Hall at FIVE O'CLOCK in the afternoon on Thursday, 1 JULY 2004 duly convened for the business hereunder mentioned.
======
BUSINESS
======
1. LORD MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
3. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
4. PETITIONS - Presented by Councillors - Presented by Members of the Public
5. QUESTIONS - From Members of the Public - From Councillors
6. REPORTS OF CABINET Area Committees for Neighbourhood Improvement Statutory Statement of Accounts 2003/04 Best Value Performance Plan Chief Executive’s Annual Report, Making Leicester More Attractive
7. REPORTS OF PROCEDURES WORKING PARTY Political Conventions Configuration of Scrutiny Committees
8. REPORT OF THE TOWN CLERK Elected Members Absence from Meetings
9. COMMITTEES - To vary the composition of any Committee of Council.
10. NOTICES OF MOTION
11. ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS
49 PRESENT:
PIARA SINGH CLAIR, LORD MAYOR CHAIRMAN
Abbey Ward Freemen Ward
JOHN FITCH MARGUERITE HENRY CARLYM ANNATAZIA SANDRINGHAM PAUL EDWIN SMITH
Aylestone Ward Humberstone and Hamilton Ward
JOHN VINCENT MUGGLESTONE ROMAN PETER SCUPLAK STEPHEN MARTIN THOMPSON
Beaumont Leys Ward Knighton Ward
GORDON HARRY GETLIFFE KEITH JOHN LLOYD-HARRIS JOAN GARRITY GARY GLENDON HUNT
Belgrave Ward Latimer Ward
COLIN JOHN HALL MANSUKLAL CHOHAN MANJULA PAUL SOOD
Braunstone Park and Rowley Fields New Parks Ward
ANDREW METCALFE JOY ELIZABETH SEARE JOHN STEPHEN BLACKMORE ANDREW KENNETH VINCENT STEPHEN PETER CORRALL
Castle Ward Rushey Mead Ward
PATRICK JOSEPH KITTERICK WINSTON STEPHEN NURSE ROSS WILLMOTT
Charnwood Ward Spinney Hills Ward
WILLIAM HENRY SHELTON MUSTAFA FAKIR KARIM JOHN WILLIAM THOMAS HASHIM CASSIM PANCHBAYA MUSSA AHMED SALEH
Coleman Ward Stoneygate Ward
PARMJIT SINGH GILL MARY ELAINE DRAYCOTT HUSSEIN ISMAIL SULEMAN
50
Evington Ward Thurncourt Ward
MICHAEL HOWARD JOHNSON JOHN GRANT ALLEN ANTHONY O’BRIEN BRENDA MAW
Eyres Monsell Ward Westcotes Ward
MARK EDWARD JOSEPH FARMER DEAN STEVEN RAMSDALE ANDREW TESSIER
Fosse Ward Western Park Ward
PHYLLIS MAY GREEN ROGER BRIAN BLACKMORE ROBERT WANN PETER COLEY
51
LORD MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Lord Mayor informed Members, with regret, of the death of Councillor Mrs. Jean Middleton, former Deputy Lord Mayor and Member for Aylestone Ward. On behalf of both Members of the Conservative Group and Members as a whole, Councillor Mugglestone spoke to associate with the Lord Mayor’s expression of sympathy. Members stood in silence to the memory of Councillor Mrs. Jean Middleton.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The Lord Mayor invited Members to declare any interests they might have in the business on the agenda and/or indicate if Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applied to them.
Councillors J Blackmore, Draycott, Fitch, Getliffe, Metcalfe, Seare and Smith all declared a personal interest in the consideration (to be taken as an item of urgent Business) of the Objection to the Cabinet decision relating to the Future Funding of Tenants and Tenants and Residents Associations, each being a tenant and/or having family members who are a tenant or have a lease on Council non-furnished housing accommodation.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
Moved by the Lord Mayor, seconded by the Deputy Lord Mayor, and carried:-
23. ΑThat, having regard to the recording difficulties relating to public and Member questions experienced at the meeting of the Council held on 27 May 2004, that the consideration of these Minutes be deferred until the next ordinary meeting of the Council.”
PETITIONS
PETITIONS FROM COUNCILLORS
Councillor Allen presented a petition with 56 signatures in the following terms:-
We, the undersigned, the residents and tenants of Amyson Road, Thurnby Lodge, would like to bring to your attention the unreasonable and antisocial behaviour of the tenants and visitors to a property in the area of Amyson Road. This behaviour is affecting all of the area surrounding this address. The police have been notified a number of times and we now seek the help of Leicester City Council, as the landlords of the property to correct this behaviour.
Moved by the Lord Mayor, seconded by the Deputy Lord Mayor:-
24 “That the aforementioned petition be referred to the Town Clerk for consideration and action as appropriate.”
52 PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
- None -
QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
Mr. J.W. Burrows said with current and future planning applications for new residential building and conversion of existing properties for residential use in mind, was the City Council at all concerned that its citizens might suffer shortages of gas, water and electricity and, also, were they sure that public services could support the every increasing demands.
Councillor Scuplak: My Lord Mayor, the preparation and review of the City’s Development Plan, Structure Plan and Local Plan, has involved extensive consultation with key stakeholders, including all of the utility companies. They are, therefore, fully aware of the scale of intended housing provision, that is some 19,000 new homes by 2016, planned within the city. None of the utility companies have made any adverse observations to the Council regarding the proposed level of housing growth.
The utility companies were also consulted during the production of the LRC’s Masterplan. All indicated that, whilst there was a need for some localised reinforcing of their networks, the level of development proposed could be accommodated within the broad capacity of the city’s infrastructure.
At the detailed development stage, developers will be required to liaise with the relevant utility companies to secure the provision of power supplies and water supplies and sewerage. The developers will normally pay for these service connections and, if necessary, contribute towards the infrastructure improvements. In the case of factory conversions, it should be noted that the actual potential demand on power supply for residential use could actually be substantially less than for some of the previous industrial users.
The Government’s urban renaissance agenda urges local planning authorities to maximise the amount of new housing on previously developed land or through the conversion of existing buildings. The retention and conversion of redundant factories for residential use, for example, within the St. George’s Conservation Area, represents a positive alternative use which the City Council supports and encourages. An increase in the residential population will bring much needed vitality to this area of the city centre and help to create a vibrant Cultural Quarter.
The City Council, as local planning authority, has considered the need for new and improved health and community facilities, as well as schools and local shopping provision as part of major new housing developments. For example, the Local Plan includes proposals for such community facilities within the new housing developments at Hamilton and Ashton Green.
I fully accept, however, that there is a world of difference between identifying community facilities in the Local Plan and delivering them. In this respect Hamilton is an indictment of the last Labour administration and I pledge, on behalf of this administration, not to repeat it anywhere else. The phasing of housing development,
53 as against development of other facilities, is very important and particularly important in respect of the city centre developments where the intention is to attract families and not just yuppies.
Regular consultation has taken place with the Primary Care Trusts regarding the identification of sites and buildings for new health care provision. A number of new health centres are being provided throughout the city as part of the LIFT project and there will continue to be discussions between the City Council and the PCT’s regarding health centre provision to meet existing deficiencies.
Finally, the City Council and the LRC have jointly commissioned research into the implications of the emerging proposals for new housing in the regeneration area and the likely future demand for school places. This work should be concluded by September and the information will be used to inform the development frameworks for the key LRC project areas and the process of negotiating developer contributions towards future education and community provision. Thank you.
Mr. J.W. Burrows: Thank you, Councillor Scuplak. Are you aware that a House of Lords Committee has expressed much the same concerns as I did in my first question, that there may be shortages come this time, any other time, because of the demand for utilities, and also can you be certain that what you have projected, a copy of which I have received recently, fits Leicester’s declared image as the first environment city because this Council, all of you, are supposed to care for our interests and our incomes?
Councillor Scuplak: My Lord Mayor, I hear Mr. Burrows’ concerns and really the expertise, certainly in the area of utilities, has to remain within the utilities companies themselves. They have not expressed such concerns and perhaps it is because of the point, as I mentioned earlier, that some of the existing uses or past uses actually of some of these buildings used a far greater amount of power than current residential or proposed residential use might. However, I will convey those fears yet again and if those fears do materialise or threaten to materialise, then certainly I will be seeking action to be taken. Thank you.
QUESTIONS FROM COUNCILLORS
Councillor Draycott asked could the Cabinet Link for Social Services and Health give his view on the figures for children diagnosed with asthma and could he arrange for up to date information to be circulated to Councillors to make them aware of numbers in each Ward.
Councillor Gill: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. I am aware of concerns nationally and locally about the incidence of childhood asthma and, indeed, I share those as well.
Such figures are collected by the Primary Care Trusts in Leicester and I will ask officers to enquire about the latest available data and whether that data is available at Ward level. When I have that information I will write to Councillor Draycott.
Can I say at this time that Members should be aware that they do have the opportunity to ask the new Health Scrutiny Committee to investigate this further.
Councillor Draycott: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I wonder if Councillor Gill is aware that the highest asthma rates in Leicester are around the Narborough Road and the Aylestone Road area, at least that was the last figures that this Council saw and will
54 he comment, therefore, on the fact that he along with his other colleagues have delayed the introduction of the park and ride scheme in this city for almost two years and it was to be a response to those people who are suffering from asthma, Lord Mayor.
Councillor Gill: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. I was not aware that the highest incidence was around the Narborough Road and Aylestone Road, but in my view it does not matter where the highest incidence is. We obviously need to be taking action to reduce that. I cannot comment on the park and ride scheme. All I can say is I can talk to my colleagues and see how far we have progressed on that. Thank you, my Lord Mayor.
Councillor Draycott asked could the Cabinet Link Member for Environment and Highways and Transportation comment on the number of complaints from local residents re emissions from Crystal Dyers, Evington Road.
Councillor Ramsdale: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. There have been numerous complaints received from residents over the last two years regarding this particular business. An abatement notice has been served on the company and it has introduced measures which have improved the situation and the level of complaints has been reduced to three in the past twelve months. However, officers are still working with the company to ensure the problems are dealt with and local residents are encouraged to contact the Council if they are continuing to have problems arising from the works involved.
Councillor Draycott: Thank you, Lord Mayor. This has been a long ongoing issue with local residents. I have constituents who have parents living close by who believe that their health is suffering because of the emissions. It does seem a very similar situation to a dyers elsewhere in Leicester that was resolved finally by legal action being taken by the Council.
Could I ask the Cabinet Link for Environment and Highways and Transportation to please check those figures that you have just given of recent complaints because I am assured that they are considerably more than what he has just said and I have also been made aware by the local residents that, if I can say, the practice of this particular business has changed, its kind of working hours, in that emissions are more evident during the night than during the day, which makes it less obvious to see. Can I ask him to go back and see if there is anything further that could be done or is this matter really to go on and on and people’s health suffer, Lord Mayor?
Councillor Ramsdale: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. Yes, I will look at the complaints figures again, Councillor Draycott, to make sure that the numbers are not greater than we have been informed.
The problems with this factory arose from stentering. This is the name of the process whereby dye houses heat fabric when it has been dyed to fix the colour. Wide roles of fabric are passed through a large, gas heated chamber. Fabric contains oils, either naturally or introduced, to lubricate the spinning or knitting process. The heat drives these oils off as a bluish flame, with a characteristic odour, which is the main problem that the residents are suffering from. These emissions are notoriously difficult to abate completely.
The fundamental difficulty we have, as a Council, is that the operator has a statutory defence under the Environmental Protection Act 1995 of ‘best practicable means’ in abating any nuisance. This defence includes consideration of the
55 maximum extent of abatement techniques which can be reasonably required by the Council and local conditions and circumstances.
Now this industry and its characteristic odour has been a common feature of east Leicester for many decades. It is obviously an industry which is long-standing in Leicester. There have been complaints about this factory since 2001, as I am sure the Councillor is aware, and Pollution staff have made numerous visits and detected a relatively small number of nuisances at the time of the visits. There is no evidence that the emissions from the factory are harmful to health at ground level concentrations and, as I have already indicated, an abatement notice was served under the above Act on 17 August 2001. Failure to comply with this notice would be a prosecutable offence but insufficient evidence of nuisance outside the scope of ‘best practicable means’ has been obtained to date to justify taking proceedings.
Following the service of the notice and various meetings with the company, measures are we think broadly in place to comply with ‘best practicable means’ under the law as follows – analysing fabric for oil content, pre-processing; wet- scouring the fabric to remove excess oil, pre-processing; abating oily fumes in the stenter emission by passing them through a condenser and an electro-static precipitator prior to discharge; discharging the emissions through a tall stack to disperse them. Proceedings would be possible, if any serious departures from these measures could be demonstrated, at any time, when a nuisance is observed but, to date, this has not been the case.
In short, the Council is hampered by weak and old-fashioned legislation, dating back to the 19th century, which is the only legislation available in relation to this particular type of plant. This, in effect, sanctions a degree of nuisance, I regret to say, under these circumstances. Now we have made two detailed representations to DEFRA on this particular issue as a Council because we do not believe the current legislation is strong enough protection for residents but, unfortunately, until now at least the Government has been unwilling to act.
Following recent discussions with the Council, the company is actively investigating different additives and scouring agents to establish whether the situation can be improved and this is being closely monitored at the present time.
As I mentioned earlier, Pollution staff are on call any time of the day. If residents are having problems then they should contact them. Now I have taken on board the comments that Councillor Draycott has made with regard to the other dye works, which I think is the one you are referring to in Aylestone. I will ask officers to look at this to see whether it is a comparable situation and whether there is the opportunity perhaps to pursue them in the same way that we did that particular company, but we do have a problem with the current legislation. It needs to be stronger and possibly we need to consider making further representations to the Government on this.
Councillor Draycott would the Cabinet Link Member for Housing agree that before undertaking a major project, reliable and accurate data was essential for Members to act on.
Councillor Metcalfe: Thank you, my Lord Mayor, yes, Councillor Draycott, it would have been sensible for your Leader, Tony Blair, to extract the data before he invaded Iraq. I think that was a major project costing in excess of £8 billion, not the sort of programme the Lib Dems would have attempted though.
56 Councillor Draycott: I do not understand the question at all. There are a few more issues to this, Councillor Metcalfe. This is a very serious matter and it is regretful that it has been treated so light-heartedly by the Member. My supplementary is to do with the Stock Options Appraisal in that, at the beginning of all the haste to get this started, Council was given the figures of £30,000 to £50,000 as the total cost that it would be carried out for. At our last Housing Options Appraisal Working Group we were given figures to show that the cost of the Housing Options Appraisal, and for those Members who are not familiar with it, this is where we are looking at perhaps selling off Council housing in Leicester, the cost has risen to almost £140,000, and we are not at the end of it yet. Would the Chair of Housing or Cabinet Link for Housing comment please on where this money will actually come and how tenants are now going to loose out on this additional money that had to be found for the Housing Options Appraisal Survey, Lord Mayor?
Councillor Metcalfe: Thank you, my Lord Mayor, that is a very simple one, it is to come out of the Housing Revenue Account.
Councillor Draycott would the Cabinet Link Member for Housing comment on the progress being made by the Options Appraisal Working Group.
Councillor Metcalfe: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. An up to date progress report was presented to both the last Steering Group Meeting on 22 June 2004 and the Housing Scrutiny Committee on 24 June 2004. I understand Councillor Draycott was present at the Housing Scrutiny Committee when the report was fully discussed. I have nothing further to add to these reports.
Councillor Draycott: Thank you, Lord Mayor. It is important that these issues are brought to Council so that all Members are made aware of it. Again my question is related to the Stock Options Appraisal work that is being undertaken by the Council. As I have said in my previous question, there was some haste to start on this particular matter and we all had this very grand video circulated to us which, very soon afterward, officers were told not to show any more, which I now understand the reasons why because, in the video it clearly states that this was all going to be completed by summer this year and the matter would be coming to Council. We then had an updated timetable which talked about October and at the last Working Group we had a new timetable which is now talking about a Council decision in December. I am not aware that we have got a Council Meeting in December, possibly it is going to be a special one but already, it seems to me, that we are six months behind with this particular work and, again, costing an awful lot more than originally and I would like an answer from the Cabinet Lead for Housing, Lord Mayor.
Councillor Metcalfe: My Lord Mayor, Councillor Draycott is well aware that the Government keeps changing the rules on Stock Options Transfer. Consequently, we are forced to meet more and more costs as a result of this as we have to comply with the new dicta from the Government to achieve a fit for purpose rating. Failure to achieve a fit for purpose rating will result in the whole Stock Options Appraisal being rejected and the Council, unfortunately, undertaking the exercise all over again. It should therefore be remembered the additional costs we are talking about are a direct result of Government intervention and dictat as a consequence of the previous administration not asking for a Stock Options Appraisal earlier under the Government’s initial rules when in power. If they had done it when in power we would not be faced with these additional requirements or costs. My Lord Mayor, the real point is we are not selling any Council houses.
57 Councillor Draycott asked would the Cabinet Link Member for Culture inform Council how long did the Xmas season last for in the Hamilton Ward.
Councillor Mugglestone: (Dressed in a Santa Claus outfit) My Lord Mayor, can I thank the little girl over there for this question. To enter into it in true Christmas style. My Lord Mayor, with its good and jovial Councillors representing the public of Hamilton, they are entitled to think that Christmas happens every day. Well supersteve Thompson, who surely the Feast of Stephen was all about, Raucous Roman here – may I point out that it was the Romans who first celebrated Christmas in 336 A.D. and, of course, you have the mighty, jovial, jolly John Mugglestone.
My Lord Mayor, even the entrance to Hamilton is celebrated with the Tesco cones constantly wearing Christmas hats put there by the local populace in celebration of their good fortune as opposed to the lesser fortunes of areas like Coleman. My Lord Mayor, I even suggested that at one time we should have a competition to design Easter bonnets for these cones but perhaps we might now look at summer hats. I think that is the question answered to Councillor Draycott. Thank you, my Lord Mayor.
Councillor Draycott: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I am very disappointed that Councillor Mugglestone could not answer the question and we had to have Santa Claus instead. My supplementary is, have these Christmas hats which to the credit of the person who put them there, obviously after a few pints, been removed or, if my information that the vans were out today with ladders, and that they have been removed today?
Councillor Mugglestone : I do not know where you got your information from. I do not know if we were there with ladders or poles or whatever, my Lord Mayor, but like the great author, Charles Dickens, who quoted Christmas as tenderness, love and compassion brought by the Christ Child to last throughout the years. You know we do not have to bunk up everything in life. We have to learn to smile and live a little and enjoy the eccentricities of people who go to make up this throne of kings, this scepter’d isle, this earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, this other Eden, this demi-paradise. This fortress built by Nature against and the hand of war. This happy breed of men, this little world set on a silver sea, which serves it in the office of a wall or as a moat defensive to the house against the envy of less happier lands, this blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this Hamilton.
Before I sit down, my Lord Mayor, I take this opportunity of reminding all Members, especially the non-Sunday shoppers, that there is only 149 shopping days left to Christmas and, in view of that, I have actually got an early Christmas present for Councillor Draycott, which I will pass round to her. (The traffic cone removed from the top of the Hamilton Public Art Cone).
Councillor Suleman asked what justification was there to cut down the chestnut tree outside the Mayfield Centre on Mayfield Road which was cut down on 20 June.
Councillor Ramsdale: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. In the opinion of highways officers the removal of the tree allows for improvements to be made in the design of the new junction. Firstly, there will be an improvement in the alignment of the Mayfield Road approach to the roundabout, which will increase the capacity of the junction. Secondly, it will be possible to extend the cycle lane, giving cyclists the opportunity to by-pass any queuing traffic on more occasions, and finally, visibility of the nearside traffic signals will be improved. The maximum visibility with the tree
58 retained is actually ten metres less than the statutory requirement.
Councillor Suleman: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. In my view proposals to remove or trim trees should be referred to the Area Committees when they are set up, can you arrange for a list of all trees in Stoneygate that are over ten feet high and not covered by Tree Preservation Orders to be listed as soon as possible so that TPO’s can be put in place?
Councillor Ramsdale: Well, with regard to the first element of that, I think it is perfectly reasonable that if Area Committees want to take an interest in the trees in their area, then I see no reason why they could not be consulted on any works that are taking place to those trees.
With regard to the second element, that seems like a fairly extensive amount of work but I am sure that the officers can look at that, Councillor Suleman. I do not envy them the idea of actually trying to measure all of these trees but I am sure we can come up with some details, dates of birth, names of the trees, everything for him.
Councillor Vincent asked could the Cabinet Link for Culture please explain the reasons why a number of War Memorials in the city were inaccessible to the public for the 60th Anniversary of ‘Operation Overlord’ (D-Day).
Councillor Mugglestone: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. Leicester City Council have war memorials in two locations, one on Victoria Park, as all of us know and most of us know of the one on Braunstone Park.
Parks Services staff have meetings with representatives of the British Legion to arrange access for appropriate ceremonies, in particular the Remembrance Sunday Services, which many of us here do attend on a regular basis, but no meetings were requested for the D-Day anniversary.
The 82nd Airborne memorial stone at Braunstone Park has suffered regretfully vandalism and, after thorough consultation, it was recently removed to a more secure location in the Braunstone walled garden. The plaque which was stolen has been replaced and a number of remembrance roses are being planted around that memorial.
In respect of the 60th anniversary of D-Day, contact was made with the British Legion Chairman, Braunstone Branch, Mr. Alwyn Watson, to see if access was required for the Braunstone Park site. However, staff were informed that access was not required until a planned event on 16 August. Mr. Watson confirmed this in a letter to the Leicester Mercury on 17 June.
Despite what I have said, in view of the significance of the anniversary, it was accepted by the officers and by me that both memorials should have been open on 6 June. A public apology from the City Council was reproduced in the Leicester Mercury on 17 June 2004 and a letter sent to Councillor Vincent on the same day.
I have asked officers to contact the British Legion to identify future anniversaries e.g. VJ Day, when it would be appropriate to open both memorials for public access.
Councillor Vincent: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. Would the Cabinet Lead for Cultural Services give assurances that these memorials will be accessible to the
59 public for other important forthcoming occasions, in particular the 60th anniversary of Operation Market Garden which, as I am sure he knows, was a major operation for airborne troops. Also, early in the New Year, there is the 15th anniversary of the Gulf War, which I have a particular interest in myself.
Councillor Mugglestone: Can I thank Councillor Vincent for that, I was not aware of the Gulf War one, and I think it is probably time for a little bit of liaison with all Members that know of any important events coming up because this year is an important event in the commemoration of the battles of the Second World War and remember the debts of people that actually fought for us from all sides in actual fact. It is never the Tommy or the basic soldiers from whatever country it is that starts wars, it is politicians and, as politicians, we ought to remember that and show our respects, and it is an important year coming up next year certainly with VJ Day, Victory in Europe Day and the year after we celebrate 1946 when hostilities in Europe actually did finish. Most people think it was in ’45, the Greek Campaign, of course, went on into ’46, when British soldiers were still losing lives on the Second World War. So there are a lot of dates coming up that we really do have to make sure those memorials are open so that people can come and show their respects for they are the reasons that we are here tonight.
Councillor John Blackmore asked would Councillor Suleman explain to Council the division of responsibilities for Education and Lifelong Learning between him and Councillor Johnson.
Councillor Johnson: Thank you, my Lord Mayor Councillor Blackmore asks the divisions in the education field between myself and Councillor Suleman but, as you see, to some degree we are interchangeable but that is beside the point. I basically am responsible for the administration’s aim to bring our schools up to standard after years and years of neglect, and whilst we are getting them up to standard, Councillor Suleman is responsible for running the services that back up and support schools. As Council will be aware, we are currently planning a £180 million programme for our secondary schools under the Government’s Building Schools for the Future fund. We are also investigating academy funding, we are working extremely hard to bring these schools up to standard and I believe we have greater plans for these schools than have ever been embarked on since the days of Queen Victoria. It is a very large department and the responsibilities are split but we are a formidable team. We keep our eyes on each other and things are better when we have two of us on the go.
Councillor John Blackmore: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. I am quite disappointed. The question was actually put to Councillor Suleman. Councillor Suleman it seems is not trusted by his own party to answer his own questions. It seems that Councillor Suleman is not trusted by his party to take up a full department.
My Lord Mayor, you may remember that, on the event of Councillor Scuplak’s resignation as Deputy Leader, Councillor Draycott actually put it as a suggestion that may be that they should consider the qualities of Deputy Leader. The coalition is quite clear, my Lord Mayor, …. ….believe in tokenism. Yes, we have a Cabinet Link Member that has half a department, that cannot even answer his own questions……….
Councillor Johnson: Thank you, my Lord Mayor, well in answer to that, well, that question, quite honestly, all I can say is that Councillor Blackmore is talking a terrible load of rubbish. There is nothing about people being trusted with
60 departments, quite honestly the size of the Education Department is large and more than enough for two of us and, quite honestly, with stupid comments like we have got from Councillor Blackmore, one wonders what the Labour Party in this city have come to.
Councillor Willmott asked would the Leader of the Council tell Council the cost of repainting the white lines in the underground car park and outside New Walk Centre.
Councillor Scuplak: The answer is £155. perhaps only slightly more than the cost of having this question tabled and answered.
Councillor Willmott: Well, I am surprised, my Lord Mayor, I expect to get invoiced, do I, for £155 from Councillor Scuplak for having the temerity of answering a straightforward question? I am quite surprised that it cost so little, my Lord Mayor, giving that the painting was of one on the Easter Bank Holiday, and would ask for some further explanation as to the total cost of labour and, indeed, materials used over this period as I cannot imagine that the cost of the work was £155.
Councillor Scuplak: The answer is £44 in materials and £101 in labour. The money is well spent. One has to appreciate it is not only a staff car park, it is also a public car park, so anything that helps people to park clearly within bays and not park across bays allowing more space in which people can park will actual maximise income to the authority. It is a very short payback period for that £155 investment and that is £155 investment in the property of this authority, a very small in-rode I have to admit in the £93 million backlog created by the party opposite but nonetheless a step in the right direction.
Councillor Corrall asked what would the portfolio holder for Social Care say to the disabled person in his Ward who could no longer use their bus pass before 9.30 a.m.
Councillor Ramsdale: Firstly, my Lord Mayor, I think Councillor Corrall is somewhat confused. I am the Cabinet Member responsibility for concessionary fares not Councillor Gill. I have sent an e-mail to the Chief Executive today asking him to provide details to Councillor Corrall of each Cabinet Member’s responsibilities in order to avoid any future confusion and, indeed, waste officers’ time.
With regard to the question itself, I should say Councillor Corrall should say to his disabled constituent that, if he is already the holder of a disabled bus pass, then he should continue to use that bus pass. The concession to use it before 9.30 has never been taken away.
Councillor Corrall: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. Thank you to the gentleman opposite for providing an answer. As far as I am concerned, the constituents are correct and they are not able to use their bus passes to go into the county before 9.30 and, as such, could he issue an apology to my constituents, along with all the other pensioners who have their bus pass restricted and so are virtually affected by this atrocious decision by the party opposite and their political masters, and if they can give an apology over a Remembrance Service, surely they can do it over this?
Councillor Ramsdale: Yes, my Lord Mayor, Councillor Corrall is wrong. Members of the public who hold a disabled bus pass can continue to use that pass. I was on a bus with one of my constituents this morning, who is disabled, they were
61 quite freely able to use their bus pass and I think it is very sad that Councillor Corrall is trying to make people believe, very vulnerable people believe, that they cannot use their bus passes when they can. If it will be of help to people, I have asked the Director to write to the bus companies today to ensure that drivers are aware that disabled bus pass holders can use their bus passes before 9.30.
Councillor Wann asked what would the portfolio holder for Social Services say to the pensioner in his Ward who could no longer use their bus pass outside of the city limits.
Councillor Ramsdale: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. Yes, Councillor Wann seems to have some confusion like Councillor Corrall as to which Member is responsible. Indeed, I have arranged for the Chief Executive to write to you as well, Councillor Wann.
Councillor Wann, I would say to your constituent, that when the new Cabinet Link for Highways and Transportation took over at the beginning of May, he made a pledge that the use of bus passes outside the city boundaries would be restored. You can also say to your constituent that I have asked the Director of Regeneration and Culture to implement the restoration of the use of those bus passes under her delegated powers, outside the city boundaries and the use of those passes on trains, hopefully with effect from next month.
Councillor Wann You have a Leader who cannot drive but you can still do marvellous u-turns. I think it is ironic and amazing that you can implement a policy in this Council to take away the rights of pensioners to travel outside the boundaries of the city. I hope that Councillor Ramsdale would agree with me, you can take away and vote that through in a budget meeting two or three months ago. Do you not agree, Councillor Ramsdale that the total hypocrisy, when you can implement one policy, take it away because you are under pressure from the Labour Party and in the By-Election, at this Council Meeting, this betraying of all those pensioners? The question is, will you be reversing this policy once again after 15 July when the By-Election is finished?
Councillor Ramsdale: First of all, my Lord Mayor, I have made a pledge to reverse this decision three weeks before the late Jim Marshall died so it has nothing to do with the By-Election.
The second thing is I opposed this decision from the beginning. Councillor Allen and I proposed that the use of the bus pass be retained outside the city boundaries and the use of the bus passes on trains be retained, but the Labour Members of the Scrutiny Committee did not support us. They are the people who have done a u- turn.
Councillor Nurse asked what would the portfolio holder for Social Services say the Liberal Democrats had done to achieve their manifesto pledge to ‘make the [bus] services more convenient.
Councillor Ramsdale: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. Councillor Nurse, like Councillor Corrall and Councillor Wann, was obviously not aware that Councillor Gill is not responsible for Highways. I have also asked the Chief Executive to write to Councillor Nurse as well so that he is aware of the responsibilities of each Cabinet Member.
As for this question, I have been fortunate to obtain a copy of our manifesto from
62 Councillor Connelly, who has a very well used copy. I cannot find this particular phrase anywhere in this, Councillor Nurse, but I am sure you can show me where it is but I have looked through three times and I cannot find it but, nevertheless, there have been improvements.
We have introduced the new bus shelters. We are trying to replace or rather provide recycled bus shelters in those places where they do not have one. I am only sorry the Councillors in New Parks are so unhappy with the new, recycled bus shelters that we have provided them with. They were told that they were going to get them and they went to the press straight afterwards and complained about them when they got them. They were in a mess because we had to have them refurbished but it was not worth refurbishing. They were not refurbished before you got them because it was likely that they would be damaged in transit and it would have cost the Council tax payers more money to have actually carried out refurbishment off site, have them damaged in transit and they have to refurbish them again when they were on site. I know you are quite willing to waste Council tax payers’ money, that is your record.
Councillor Nurse: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. I did not understand a word of that. My Lord Mayor, I would like to ask then, Councillor Ramsdale, when will he and the Liberal Democrats reinstate the concessions for the pensioners with Leicester City Council to use their bus passes when travelling outside of Leicester as the County Council?
Councillor Ramsdale: My Lord Mayor, I have just indicated that we are going to re-introduce the use. I said at the time we hoped to do it next month.
Councillor Corrall asked what would the portfolio holder for Social Services say to the young disabled users of 27A Access Artspace who now know that if alternative funding cannot be found in the next 12 months, their project would be closed. 27A Access Artspace was a Disability Arts Centre which provided a wide range of visual and performing arts activities for people with learning disabilities, physical disabilities and mental health problems.
Councillor Mugglestone: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. It is one of Environment’s and not Councillor Gill, who is getting quite upset because he needs the publicity actually for his election campaign.
As part of the Council’s three year budget strategy, it was agreed to fund 27A until 31 March next year. Given the very difficult budgetary position, it was agreed to prioritise grant aid funding to festivals and events and to support the development of the Cultural Quarter in St. Georges. In making that decision, it was considered that a number of sports and arts projects, including 27A had opportunities to secure funding from other sources.
In the event that they are unsuccessful, which I very much doubt will happen, in securing alternative funding, we would look to offer opportunities at other arts venues in the city. Fosse Arts, for example, runs courses for groups such as Remit and Mosiac and we all know the excellent work they do and they have the ability to tailor workshops to meet specific needs.
Disabled users are also able to access mainstream services for example, at De Montfort Hall, the Education Officer organises workshops and performances with mixed groups of disabled and able-bodied groups of young people, both in the building at in schools. Every effort is made to make festivals and events as
63 accessible as possible including specific viewing areas and platforms and we will ensure that young disabled people are able to access mainstream workshops at the City Gallery, hopefully at the new City Gallery.
Councillor Corrall: Thank you, my Lord Mayor, I would like to thank the Cabinet Link for Education for his interesting answer on Social Services, but I repeat the question that I asked earlier, can the Cabinet Link actually apologise to this group of people, they are very deserving and I think this Council should be including them rather than excluding them.
Councillor Mugglestone: My Lord Mayor, I think in my previous answer I said, that I expect with the new Cultural Quarter being implemented, funded by this administration, that the actual facilities for arts and disabled people within this city will be a great deal better than the place they have at the minute at 27A Belvoir Street which, quite frankly, is a dump and I can say that from frank knowledge because 27B was the Conservative Headquarters at one time and that was an inaccessible dump. Hopefully this group will go on to better things, better quarters, better places, better facilities and have a better future next year. I know the Leader has a great interest in this actual group, a great interest, will have a better place to go to next year than what they have now.
Councillor Getliffe asked what would the portfolio holder for Social Services say to Mosaic users whose budget was under threat.
Councillor Scuplak: My Lord Mayor, people may not know that Mosaic is a long- established, indeed, a charity established over a hundred years ago, which identifies and provides services and support for people with disabilities in the city, county and Rutland and, during the course of those one hundred years, has secured many endowments and has been the beneficiary of much charitable giving such that its last reported accounts that I have managed to pick up on the Internet today showed annual income of over half a million pounds and total assets at the present time, not assets, funds actually of £1.5 million and am, therefore, not aware of Mosaic’s budget being under threat.
Councillor Getliffe: Yes, I mean the u-turn on concessionary cross border bus fares is to be welcomed, my Lord Mayor, but at the minute when the coalition is feeling so benevolent, I would ask again, will Councillor Scuplak perform another u- turn on behalf of the coalition and give an assurance to Mosaic, especially after Councillor Mugglestone’s valiant tribute to the work that Mosaic do, that Mosaic and the people concerned that their funding given by the Council will continue into the future, long term and, therefore, be welcomed as the buspass u-turn by people with disabilities across the city?
Councillor Scuplak: My Lord Mayor, there is no reason for a u-turn in this respect. There is certainly no threat to Mosaic’s funding. A contract has been agreed. Councillor Willmott says, yes there is, he perhaps, therefore, knows something that I do not or perhaps it is another example of Labour scare-mongering. I repeat again, there is no threat to Mosaic’s funding, its funding from the City Council is secure, its own personal funding from its own assets is secure. I do not know what the fuss is about.
Councillor Draycott asked what would the portfolio holder for Social Services say about Liberal Democrat Councillors attacking the Liberal Democrat run Council on poor litter collection.
64 Councillor Henry: Thank you. Like Councillor Ramsdale I was a bit concerned that the Labour Members did not actually know which Cabinet Lead has which responsibilities. I would ask that all the Labour Members are circulated with the Cabinet Links and their responsibilities and terms of reference so that is no further confusion. Councillor Draycott, I have no knowledge of any Liberal Democrat Member attacking us over litter collection. If you do know, if you would like to see me outside later with that.
Councillor Draycott Yes, thank you, Lord Mayor. Just to make it clear that we are not necessarily interested in which Cabinet Link is responsible for. When we ask a question, we have a good reason for asking that particular Member. We can work it out ourselves so we do not need any more e-mails at all, thank you very much.
Just on the supplementary regarding that particular question, Councillor Farmer has put out one of your Focus leaflets in Leicester South criticising the Council for not collecting litter up in his particular area. As he is part of the ruling coalition, is not he a Councillor and should not he be getting it sorted out himself?
Councillor Henry: Councillor Draycott, thank you for grassing him up, I will deal with him later. Thanks a lot.
Councillor Willmott asked what would the portfolio holder for Social Services say about the 10% Council Tax rise, despite the extra £15 million given by the Labour Government. How did this fit with the local Liberal Democrat’s 2003 manifesto to ‘halt ever increasing Council Tax bills by putting the city on a sound financial footing’.
Councillor Coley: Thank you, Lord Mayor, yet another question that is clearly not related to Social Care and Health. Councillor Willmott, I do believe the Chief Executive will be writing to you to give you an idea of the responsibilities of each Cabinet Member.
Councillor Willmott, you will be aware that the Council share of the tax bill went up by 8.7% not 10%. The additional increase up to 9.8%, again not 10%, this being due to the increased precept demanded by the Police and Fire Authorities. The Police increased their tax by 14.6% and the figures for the Fire Authority have never actually been published on the grounds that they cannot be compared with last year, but the increase is at least 16%. We have no control over these bodies. However, the Government does have the ability to cap them if it wished but it chose not to do so.
There is a number of financial issues which needed to be addressed when the budget was set for 2004/05 and this included £1.6 million of reserves being used to balance the 2003/04 budget and this meant that in 2003/04, the Labour’s pre- election budget this was, the expenditure exceeded income by £1.6 million. The gap needed to be plugged in 2004/05 which has increased the expenses. At the same time reserves went down below the recommended minimum balance of £5 million and £600,000 was put into the budget to bring it up towards £5 million. It was anticipated that another £600,000 would be required between 2005 and 2007 to bring this level up but this is now not necessary following the final outturn position for 2003/04.
The current budget strategy for 2003/04 included £1.7 million of unspecified savings to be achieved by 2004/05, this is another thing that Labour had kicked over the border to this next year we had to find. Part of this was to provide £600,000 to
65 operate the new Braunstone Leisure Centre. Provision was made in 2004/05 budget for the costs of the new job evaluation scheme and £1 million was included rising to £2.8 million in 2005/6. The scheme had been signed up to by Labour five years earlier and then quietly dumped putting the authority at great risk of equal pay claims which would amount to tens of millions of pounds of waste to the tax payer.
£2 million worth of growth was put into Social Services as a consequence of the growing and continual pressure on the services and a property maintenance backlog, estimated at nearly £96 million, needs to be addressed. Labour’s failure to deal with this may be responsible for the ceiling collapse which injured children in one of our city schools last year.
Now, again, Councillor Willmott’s problem with simple addition lets him down. The Council’s grant increased by £16.7 million not £15 million that he says in his question, and whilst this sounds a lot, half of it, £8.2 million had to be given to Education to meet the Government’s passporting requirements. A further £4.4 million was needed for Social Services and £1.6 million was from the previous year’s borrowing requirement. This left for all other services the Council provides, that is all the other services, £2.5 million additional budget for every other service that the Council provides.
Through its three year budget strategy, Council has set out its aims for Council Tax increases at or below the national average for future years. Thank you, my Lord Mayor.
Councillor Willmott: The point, my Lord Mayor, despite all of Councillor Coley’s waffle and blather, is that it says in their manifesto that they intend to halt ever increasing Council Tax bills by putting the city on a sound financial footing. My Lord Mayor, will Councillor Coley admit that he has put the Council Tax up by at least twice as much as Labour did in three years and come clean to the people of Leicester and apologise for the falsehood that is in his manifesto? I think that is what he should do, come clean, apologise now in this Council Chamber for raising the Council Tax by, sorry, 9.8%, 0.2% less then I claimed. Thank you, my Lord Mayor
Councillor Coley: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Councillor Willmott is talking his own nonsense, three times I think not. We increased the Council Tax by more than we would have liked to have done this year and we clearly flagged this up prior to the budget. In fact, we informed the public that it had to be done and the reason it had to be done was because Labour fudged the previous year’s budget, bribed the electorate to get them to vote for you, you used reserves to prop up your income, you did not fund the job evaluation scheme, you did not fund things properly. We have made a commitment to put the city on a sound financial basis. This we have done and we have said we are going to set rises at or below the average and that is what we fully intend to do from now on. Thank you, Lord Mayor. Councillor Wann asked how could the portfolio holder for Social Services appear on a leaflet claiming to ‘invest in community centres’ when the Liberal Democrat Council administration, of which he was a member, when every single community centre in Leicester was facing the Liberal Democrat axe.
Councillor Suleman: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. In answer to the question, my Lord Mayor, he says how can the portfolio leader for Social Services appear on a leaflet. Basically you take a picture of the gentleman and it is printed, lithographed, etc. But investment in community centres he says and he is saying we are closing down or axing, the Liberal Democrat axe.
66
My Lord Mayor, in answer to Councillor Wann’s question, the Education and Lifelong Learning Department, as I have mentioned before, is undertaking a review of all the properties in the Lifelong Learning and Community Development Division and officers are consulting extensively on this exercise and I should like to make it very clear that there are no plans to close down any community facilities. Hence, furthermore, investment is mentioned in here, specifically. Eyres Monsell in the last year has had resurfacing work done to the car park and a new disabled entrance as well, that is where the investment has been put.
Councillor Wann: My Lord Mayor, would not Councillor Suleman agree that when a review is being carried out, it is a little bit strange that the staff in these community centres have now been served with at risk notices, which is really putting them on redundancy notice, so what you really intend is to make these staff redundant and close the community centres and printing a bogus leaflet, more brochures printed and more Liberal lies about putting money into community centres? What do you now say to those staff that have at risk notices and are under risk of redundancy that you are now removing, do you agree with that?
Councillor Suleman: My Lord Mayor, Councillor Wann is mixed up here and it is not his fault, it is the general fault of the Opposition. There are two reviews going on right now, one is the divisional organisation review and one is the premises review. There are two reviews actually on-going and an organisation review is in view ongoing for two years nearly, but it actually started in the last administration and notices have gone, of course, because there is a complete review of the staff and all of it,. Having said that, I still say again, no community facilities, no community centres will be closing.
Councillor Wann asked would the Leader of the Council advise on how many school children were at risk, due to the vacancies in lollipop wardens, and also advise on how many school children were at risk, due to the current administration’s failure to re-appoint a lollipop warden for Eyres Monsell Primary School.
Councillor Suleman: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. Recruitment to the school crossing patrol service has been particularly successful in the past few months. From a long-standing vacancy rate of around 20 sites, there are now only 10 vacancies serving 7 schools. Most of these are on the east side of the city.
Patrol cover for Eyres Monsell ended on 23 June 2004 following the resignation of the previous post holder. A number of surveys of the Eyres Monsell site have been carried out in accordance with the school crossing patrol policy of which the previous administration was responsible for that policy, they have been carried out in accordance with that, to determine the continued eligibility of the site to be maintained. On each occasion this site has not met the eligibility level required to allow for the reappointment of a patrol. The head teacher has been informed in accordance with the agreed policy. She has been advised that if she wishes to appeal against the withdrawal she may do so to the School Crossing Patrol Officer before the end of the term.
Councillor Wann: Lord Mayor, I thank Councillor Suleman for that reply. Would Councillor Suleman not agreed then, that where we have ten vacancies on lollipop patrols covering seven schools and the policy is obviously wrong in terms of recruitment for Eyres Monsell Primary School, would you not agree that not only is that policy wrong in the Council in terms of determining which schools have a lollipop patrol? Obviously our recruitment and retention in terms of human
67 resources is equally wrong. Would you not agree that we need to look at the pay of these people, their working conditions, what they have done and this Council’s policy before we have a death upon our hands of a child in this city? Thank you.
Councillor Suleman: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. It is obviously a serious concern to Councillor Wann, especially for the citizens he actually represents in Eyres Monsell but, yes, I would agree to a certain extent that we have to look at the policy which was not done on my watch, it was done on his administration’s watch. We do need to look at the policy. Eyres Monsell Councillors have already pointed this out to me so we need to look at pay, etc., and I am sure also quite willing to do that and keep you informed on the progress.
Councillor Wann asked would the Leader of the Councillor advise on the long awaited outcome of laboratory tests for the sub-standard tarmac on Woodgate/Frog Island and explain why no works has been carried out on the bridge for over a month.
Councillor Ramsdale: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. With regard to the first element of it, the situation has not changed since the last meeting of the Council. I told you then we expected the independent report at the beginning of this month. We still anticipate it at the beginning of this month and, as soon as we have a result, I will let both yourself and Councillor Green know. Hopefully, we will then be able to identify culpability of either the contractor or the supplier for the failure of the surface of the road. I think I mentioned last time that no funds have been released at this stage so we control the money that is going to be used to pay for this but we should, hopefully, have some answers for you in the next week or two.
With regard to the second element relating to the bridge, no works have taken place on site between 20 May and 27 June because of major health and safety issues that had to be resolved, particularly safe methods of working on the site. These were mainly due to the safe removal of lead based paint as the works are over a watercourse and a heavily populated area. It was essential, therefore, that every precaution had to be put in place before the works could progress. Works are currently progressing well off site with the manufacture, repair and repainting of the parapets.
Councillor Wann: Thank you for that, My Lord Mayor. Councillor Ramsdale, I think you are aware this issue has been raised in a letter that was put out by the operations person there saying that they would re-instruct the work to be carried prior to the end of May, you may be interested to know it did not say anything about your answer you gave to me at the last Council Meeting whereby these long awaited laboratory tests are going to be done in June, so you may wish to look at that issue. Equally the traders were told by the Operations Director on site that there have been no works carried out on the bridge because the contractors who were given the contract actually pulled out of that contract and you had to find another contractor, so the message that is going to people who are very upset about these works on Frog Island and Woodgate are totally different to the answers I am getting at Council. Would you undertake to look at those?
Councillor Ramsdale: I certainly will, Councillor. I will undertake that we write to the businesses concerned setting out the position. As I think I mentioned at the last meeting, the original tests that were carried out were not satisfactory, they were not conclusive and this is why we are undertaking independent tests, hopefully to clarify the situation. As I said, we should have answers, hopefully in the next week or two with regard to the tests, so that we can move on from the situation and resolve it
68 from your perspective but, more importantly, the local businesses, and I will look into the point you have raised and will write to the local businesses setting out the current position.
Councillor Kitterick asked could the Cabinet Lead for Regeneration inform us whether an equalities impact assessment had been carried out with regard to the Advice Services review.
Councillor Scuplak: My Lord Mayor, it has.
Councillor Kitterick: Lord Mayor, in view that this report has been suppressed from public discussions until after the by-election, can the Cabinet Lead for Regeneration confirm that in the recommendations of the Advice Services Review, there are half a million pounds worth of cuts to the Advice Services Review, all of which are concentrated in the constituency of Leicester South. Will the Cabinet Lead for Regeneration further confirm that £150,000 worth of Advice Services cuts are in the Stoneygate Ward in Leicester South and, at the moment, my Lord Mayor, the Members for Stoneygate Ward slip my mind, perhaps the Chief Executive could send me an e-mail?
Councillor Scuplak: My Lord Mayor, nothing has been suppressed from public discussion, the report has not been finalised, therefore, I cannot comment at this stage on any recommendations.
Councillor Kitterick asked could the Cabinet Lead for anti-social behaviour inform Council why there has been a six month delay in imposing ASBOs on pimps and prostitutes in South Highfields.
Councillor Metcalfe: Thank you, Councillor. I am actually quite pleased to actually answer this question. Councillor Kitterick, it is actually a case which is ultra vires, so I cannot discuss it per se. What I can tell you is that two the perpetrators are actually in Her Majesty’s custody, one has left the area and the other one is being served with the ASBO.
Councillor Kitterick: There has been some delay on that, Lord Mayor, and I would welcome the imposition of anti-social behaviour orders on pimps and prostitutes. These are not victims, these are the nasty end, no question. The question I would like to ask is, what does Councillor Metcalfe think of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Group’s consistent opposition to all anti-social behaviour legislation?
Councillor Metcalfe: I think if he had spoken to Matthew Taylor, which is our spokesperson on crime, that you actually had got the issue wrong. We were actually out with our M.P. the other day, we actually gained his press, but yes.
Councillor Kitterick asked could the Cabinet Lead for the Premises Review inform Council what discussions had taken place with the African Caribbean Centre to ensure its future survival.
Councillor Suleman: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. The African Caribbean Centre has been at the centre of extensive discussion with the African Caribbean Citizens Forum over a long period. An Advisory Board has been established to ensure that positive and meaningful communication takes place between the African Caribbean community representatives and officers of the Council to explore options for the future of the centre.
69 Councillor Kitterick: Lord Mayor, I had the pleasure of attending the African Caribbean Citizens Forum meeting last Friday and the picture I received, Lord Mayor, was somewhat different from the one we are talking before Council. I would, therefore, like to ask Councillor Suleman if he can give a clear promise and from this Council, he should be able to do that, that the African Caribbean Centre will remain open and primarily for the use of the African Caribbean community in Leicester? Can he give that promise and can he promise that he will not go back on that?
Councillor Suleman: My Lord Mayor, Councillor Kitterick obviously has more information on the issues than I certainly have. Suffice to say, let me tell you that, you have asked a specific question for the future of the centre, it will remain open and there is an Advisory Panel that is in discussion with Council officers as to way forward. The details are still to emerge. Discussions are still going on. There is a commitment to secure the future of the centre. Furthermore, we all will be and I will inform the Council of the proposals for the centre when formal decisions are over and I can assure Councillors that they will be kept up to speed on the developments. Thank you.
Councillor Kitterick asked could the Cabinet Lead for Regeneration give Council an assurance that all advice providers in the city would be treated equally in the Advice Services Review.
Councillor Scuplak: My Lord Mayor, I am not sure when Councillor Kitterick means by the term ‘treated equally’. If he means equally as regards process and assessment, I can give him that assurance. If he means equally as regards outcome, the answer is most definitely no. The purpose of the review has been to ensure that the resources are allocated to those services best able to contribute to the Council’s priorities.
Councillor Kitterick The anomaly is the funding of SHARP, which is in the Housing Division, and I believe that funding for SHARP has now ended and, because of the delay in examining the Advice Services Review, I think that SHARP has been left high and dry, so if you do wish to follow up that pledge on equal opportunity on Advice Service providers, I would ask that Sharp receives its funding like all other Advice Services Review providers will be until you actually get to Cabinet finally, Lord Mayor.
Councillor Scuplak: My Lord Mayor, I have to say that my remit to the Review as a whole is not incorporated directy in the advice service provided by SHARP and I am not aware that in our treatment of SHARP we have done anything in the past that has had contradicted any policy or promises we made.
Councillor Garrity asked could the Cabinet Link for Culture confirm which by-law specifically bars camping on Victoria Park.
Councillor Mugglestone: I can confirm to Councillor Garrity that it is By-Law 15 of the 1958 By-Laws.
Councillor Garrity: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. I have a number of issues to raise here. One of the most important things is the lack of consultation with the park users and I wonder if I could ask through you, Lord Mayor, that I pass these concerns and issues to Councillor Mugglestone and to get a written reply.
Councillor Mugglestone: Yes.
70
Councillor Garrity asked could the Cabinet Link for Education and Lifelong Learning inform Council how much money was being put into Leicester’s Adventure Playgrounds this year.
Councillor Suleman: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. A total of £772,631.00 has been committed in this financial year to the nine Adventure Playgrounds. A small proportion of this sum has been committed from Early Years budgets to three of the providers on the basis that a relatively small element of their provision is meeting the needs of under five year olds in closed access provision.
Councillor Garrity: Lord Mayor, thank you very much. The question is would the Cabinet Link Member agree with me that, in the light of the £4.5 million extra into Education, an additional £2.5 million extra in the Social Care and Health and with over £2 million extra into Environmental Services, with the investment of up to £100 million into Council homes along with plans to invest £30 million into leisure centres, museums and parks, can he confirm that the residents of Leicester were right to reject Labour at the last year’s Council elections?
Councillor Suleman: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. Yes, the public was right in answer to this but, to be more specific I mean on spend, because this Chamber needs to know something actually with reference to the Adventure Playgrounds. It was a big issue and we reserved the right as Elected Members, as the administration to question and get answers, therefore, these are public funds. Unlike the previous administration, unlike Councillor Willmott talking about £155 when he spent £1100 on blue settees and things like that, we are, and we are in an administration that we have to get questions, get the answers and then move forward.
With reference to Councillor Garrity’s question on the Adventure Playgrounds, we have put in more money, we have put in more money because, unlike the opposition, we actually voted at full Council, and you will all remember, full Council, let me say that they voted to maintain the level of funding as it was. Well colleagues, you nod your heads, that actually equated to a cut because, unlike them, we know about finances. You do not accept the fact that we understood what the problem was and we have allowed for inflation, we have actually in some cases, actually some of the Adventure Playgrounds have received additional funds to relieve particular budget problems as well, so Councillor Garrity, you can rest assured that the citizens of Leicester made the right decision because, if we had left it to the opposition, the Adventure Playgrounds would have had cuts.
Councillor O’Brien asked would the Cabinet Lead for Housing kindly advise when the ivy that was growing over the gable end of the flats of 600 to 620 Ethel Road, Evington, would be removed to prevent further damage to the windows, the gable end and to the balcony doors of the first floor flats and to the roofing tiles of the building.
Councillor Metcalfe: Thank you, very much, my Lord Mayor. I can inform you that like your colleague the contractor was actually on site today and is carrying out the work at present.
Councillor O’Brien: My sincere thanks to the honourable gentleman for getting this work done so speedily. I have got two questions supplementary. As I passed by this morning, I saw the first battalion of the Ballykissangel’s light cavalry working very hard removing this. My question is with it being a private contractor, how much
71 is the cost in excess of the Council doing it and also will all the blocks be similarly treated with the same expediency? Is it a question that the ivy is being removed and the cones in Hamilton have been removed then, my Lord Mayor, it is a wonderful thing that we have questions for Council.
Councillor Metcalfe: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. I think you will find that we use outside contractors all the time to do that type of work, my Lord Mayor, but if you actually want the costs I will find out exactly and give it to you in writing.
Councillor O’Brien asked would the Council Lead for Highways and Transportation kindly inform him and his constituents when would the long appealed bus shelter at the top of Wicklow Drive/Goodwood Road corner and Evington village at the newly sited bus stop be installed, Both of these site were situated on highly exposed sites and this was causing great discomfort for our bus users.
Councillor Ramsdale: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. As Councillor O’Brien indicates, there is an outstanding request for a bus shelter for Wicklow Drive/Goodwood Road. There are outstanding requests for shelters which are currently expected to be fulfilled in about three to five years time when the replacement of all existing shelters has taken place.
However, consideration is being given to adjusting the erection programme to enable outstanding requests to be fulfilled in the next financial year. This would require the reuse of some existing Council shelters until they are replaced and some of those have already been going up in various parts of the city.
The stop in Evington village is a new stop and is the subject of a proposal to erect an advertising shelter which, if successful, should be provided this autumn If unsuccessful, the site would then be subject to the same consideration as the outstanding requests for other sites.
Councillor O’Brien: I thank Councillor Ramsdale for his reply, my Lord Mayor. I ask a supplementary question because he made no mention of the bus shelter in the very highly exposed site in Evington village and ask that we use the same team that removed the ivy to do the same job because they are hard workers.
Councillor Ramsdale: With regards to the bus stop in Evington village I indicated we are hoping actually to have a bus shelter in place by the autumn.
72 REPORTS OF CABINET
AREA COMMITTEES FOR NEIGHBOURHOOD IMPROVEMENT
(Decision reserved to Council)
At its meeting on 21 June 2004 the Cabinet received a report presenting an operational framework for the establishment of Area Committees in Leicester.
The Minute Extract of the Cabinet is attached to these Minutes.
Moved by Councillor Roger Blackmore, seconded by Councillor Johnson, and carried:-
25. “That, in relation to the Council Report on Area Committees for Neighbourhood Improvement, the recommendations of Cabinet at their meeting on 21 June 2004 be approved, with the addition of a third Area Committee, in the initial phase, namely that of Braunstone Park and Rowley Fields, Western Park and Westcotes Wards and the delegation to the Town Clerk to give him authority to update the toolkit and, in consultation with the Area Committee Members, decide on the frequency of Area Committee meetings and the dates of first and subsequent meetings.”
AN AMENDMENT
Moved by Councillor Willmott, seconded by Councillor Draycott:-
“That Council:-
(i) express its concern to Cabinet that the rollout of the project is not workable, due to the lack of resources allocated to the project;
(ii) express its concern about the high level of risk to the Council’s finances;
(ii) express its concern regarding the lack of any budget for the proposed Forums;
(iv) express its concern about the lack of evident commitment by many elected members;
(v) express its concern that the existing resources to area forums would be withdrawn;
(vi) express to Cabinet their concern that the project has no resources to facilitate community cohesion and community engagement; and,
(vii) and, in consequence, refer the report back to Cabinet for it to address these identified concerns and to reconsider whether it can find more resources to fund the initiative.”
In accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 29, the names of those Members voting for and against the Amendment were recorded as follows:-
73 FOR THE AMENDMENT
Councillor John Blackmore Councillor Chohan Councillor Corrall Councillor Draycott Councillor Getliffe Councillor Hall Councillor Kitterick Councillor Lloyd-Harris Councillor Nurse Councillor Shelton Councillor Sood Councillor Thomas Councillor Wann Councillor Willmott
AGAINST THE AMENDMENT
Councillor Allen Councillor Roger Blackmore Councillor Coley Councillor Fitch Councillor Garrity Councillor Gill Councillor Green Councillor Henry Councillor Hunt Councillor Johnson Councillor Karim Councillor Maw Councillor Metcalfe Councillor Mugglestone Councillor Panchbhaya Councillor Ramsdale Councillor Saleh Councillor Sandringham Councillor Scuplak Councillor Seare Councillor Smith Councillor Suleman Councillor Tessier Councillor Thompson
The Lord Mayor put the Amendment to the vote and declared it lost, 14 votes for, 24 votes against and 1 abstention.
STATUTORY STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS 2003/4
(Decision reserved to Council)
At its meeting on 21 June 2004, the Cabinet received a report regarding the Statutory Statement of Accounts 2003/4.
A complete set of the accounts was made available to each of the Political Group Rooms.
The Minute Extract of the Cabinet is attached to these minutes.
Moved by Councillor Coley, seconded by Councillor Karim, and carried:-
26. “That the City Council approve the Statutory Statement of Accounts 2003/04.”
BEST VALUE PERFORMANCE PLAN
(Matter reserved to Council)
At its meeting on 21 June 2004, the Cabinet considered and endorsed the Best Value Performance Plan.
Full copies of the Performance Plan were made available in each of the Political Group Rooms.
74 The Minute Extract of the Cabinet is attached to these Minutes.
Moved by Councillor Coley, seconded by Councillor Roger Blackmore, and carried:-
27. “That the City Council endorse the Best Value Performance Plan 2004/2005.”
CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S ANNUAL REPORT
Making Leicester More Attractive
(Matter reserved to Council)
At its meeting on 21 June 2004, the Cabinet received a report of the Chief Executive which reviewed post achievement and sought guidance on the key cross- service priorities for the coming year.
The Minute Extract of the Cabinet is attached to these minutes.
Moved by Councillor Roger Blackmore, seconded by Councillor Johnson, and carried:-
28. “That the City Council endorse the Chief Executive’s Annual Report: Making Leicester More Attractive.”
REPORTS OF PROCEDURES WORKING PARTY
Moved by Councillor Coley, seconded by Councillor Johnson, and carried:-
POLITICAL CONVENTIONS
At its meeting on 15 June 2004, the Procedures Working Party considered proposed amendments to the Council’s Political Conventions.
The Standards Committee’s views as requested at its meeting on 30 June are attached to these Minutes.
29. “(i) That the City Council approve the recommendations of the Procedures Working Party, as set out in the report, subject to for Convention 5.1, the adoption of the approach detailed in the Standards Committee Minutes and the further consultation recommended for part of Convention 5.1;
(ii) that the proposed new Convention on Property discussions be subject to further consideration by the Procedures Working Party prior to further Council consideration.
(iii) that the protocols on Member conduct at meetings be approved, subject to further consideration by the Group Whips and the comments of the Standards Committee in item 5 and, if necessary, report back to the Council on any significant change proposed;
(iv) that the Town Clerk be authorised to update the Conventions
75 accordingly.”
AN AMENDMENT
Moved by Councillor Draycott, seconded by Councillor Willmott:-
“Remove the words ‘subject to for Convention 5.1, the adoption of the approach detailed in the Standards Committee Minutes and the further consultation recommended for part of Convention 5.1’ at the item of (i).”
The Lord Mayor put the amendment to the vote and declared it lost.
SCRUTINY COMMITTEES RECONFIGURATION
Arising from the decision at the meeting of Council on 27 May 2004, the Procedures Working Party considered a report on outstanding matters relating to the experimental arrangements for Scrutiny Committees.
The relevant Minute extract from the procedures Working Party is set out below:-
EXTRACT FROM PROCEDURES WORKING PARTY MINUTES – 15 JUNE 2004
83. SCRUTINY COMMITTEES CONFIGURATION
The Town Clerk submitted a report which in light of the resolution of the Council on 27 may relating to proposed experimental Scrutiny arrangements, asked the Working party to consider the remaining issues which would require Council determination prior to new arrangements becoming operational.
It was noted that the Labour Group did not support any change from the current 8 Scrutiny Committees. The representations from the triumvirate of the Health and Scrutiny Committee were also noted.
AGREED:
i) that the Council’s proposed scrutiny configuration be supported but with a combined membership and triumvirates fro the ‘merging’ committees of Social Services and Health and Arts, Leisure and the Environment and Highways & Transportation, the specific working arrangements to be agreed by the Committees.
ii) that the ‘merged’ Committees report back to Council after 6 months
iii) that Children Services be considered by the combined Health and Social Care Committee and include consultation with any other relevant committees to ensure a corporate approach to scrutiny of childrens services.
Moved by Councillor Roger Blackmore, seconded by Councillor Johnson, and carried:-
30. “That the City Council approve the recommendations of the Procedures Working Party in respect of the six months experimental period for the
76 reconfiguration of Scrutiny Committees and that, for this experimental period, the Terms of Reference for the combined Scrutiny Committees be as attached to the Council Minutes, with delegation to the Town Clerk, in consultation with the triumvirate concerned of the dates of the first and subsequent meetings of each of those combined Scrutiny Committees.”
REPORT OF THE TOWN CLERK
ELECTED MEMBER ABSENCE FROM MEETINGS
Moved by Councillor Henry, seconded by Councillor Coley, and carried:-
31. “That, prior to the expiry of six months since the last attendance by Councillor Coles at a Council, Committee or Sub-Committee of the Council, having regard to the extenuating circumstances arising from Councillor Coles’ illness, Council is of the view that there should be an extension of time for Councillor Coles’ membership of the Council, subject to the expiry of a further five months (i.e. for Member consideration at the Council Meeting on 25 November 2004).
COMMITTEES
- None -
NOTICES OF MOTION
- None -
ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS
Following the Cabinet Meeting held on 21 June 2004, a formal Objection, signed by five Members, had been lodged against the Cabinet decision relating to the Future Funding of Tenants and Tenants and Residents Associations.
This Objection was submitted within the prescribed time period but after the Council papers had been dispatched.
To comply with Council Procedure rule 44(e) that the Objection be considered at the next ordinary meeting of the Council, the Lord Mayor had indicated his agreement to this Objection being considered as a matter of urgent business.
OBJECTION TO CABINET DECISION – FUTURE FUNDING OF TENANTS AND TENANTS AND RESIDENTS ASSOCIATIONS
Councillors Willmott (proposer), Draycott (seconder), John Blackmore, Corrall and Westley had objected to the decision of the Cabinet on 21 June with regard to the Future Funding of Tenants and Tenants and Residents Associations.
77
The submitted grounds for the Objection were:-
(a) adverse impact on larger TARA
(b) adverse impact on social cohesion
(c) lack of targets for increased funding to Federation.
The Minute extract of the Cabinet is attached to these minutes, as is the associated Minute Extract of the Housing Scrutiny Committee at its meeting held on 24 June 2004.
Moved by Councillor Metcalfe, seconded by Councillor Allen:-
“That the decisions of the Cabinet, at their meeting on 21 June 2004, in respect of the future funding of Tenants and Tenants and Residents Associations be confirmed.”
AN AMENDMENT
Moved by Councillor Draycott, seconded by Councillor Getliffe:-
“That Council recognises the sterling work undertaken by TA & TARA's. It welcomes the goal of value for money and the new Service Level Agreements being set for all of them.
Council also recognises that for a number of TARA's, Morton & Northfields, St Mathews, St Peters, Beaumont Leys & Eyres Monsell, additional funding is required as they cover areas of high deprivation (ref Appendix 2) and that their work produces a huge return and benefit to the City by attracting national funding, which is to date over £70 million. Without the existence of these Associations we would never have achieved this investment in our communities.
Council requests the Liberal Democrat/Conservative Cabinet to acknowledge the contribution of these Associations to the well being of our city and to end its attack on the most vulnerable communities in Leicester.
Council therefore refers the matter back to the Cabinet and requests that Cabinet sets aside this report and produces a new report that recognises the valuable contribution of these associations and looks at ways of maintaining the current levels of funding to the above 5 TARA's and brings this back to Council at its next meeting.”.
In accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 29, the names of those Members voting for and against the Amendment were recorded as follows:-
FOR THE AMENDMENT
Councillor John Blackmore Councillor Chohan Councillor Corrall Councillor Draycott Councillor Getliffe Councillor Hall Councillor Kitterick Councillor Lloyd-Harris Councillor Nurse Councillor Shelton
78 Councillor Sood Councillor Thomas Councillor Wann Councillor Willmott
AGAINST THE MOTION
Councillor Allen Councillor Roger Blackmore Councillor Coley Councillor Farmer Councillor Fitch Councillor Garrity Councillor Gill Councillor Green Councillor Henry Councillor Hunt Councillor Johnson Councillor Maw Councillor Metcalfe Councillor Mugglestone Councillor O’Brien Councillor Panchbhaya Councillor Ramsdale Councillor Saleh Councillor Sandringham Councillor Scuplak Councillor Seare Councillor Smith Councillor Suleman Councillor Tessier Councillor Thompson Councillor Vincent
The Lord Mayor put the Amendment to the vote and declared it lost, 14 votes for, 26 votes against and 2 abstentions.
Following further debate the Lord Mayor put the Substantive Motion to the vote. In accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 29, the names of those Members voting for and against the Motion were recorded as follows:-
FOR THE MOTION
Councillor Allen Councillor Roger Blackmore Councillor Coley Councillor Farmer Councillor Fitch Councillor Garrity Councillor Gill Councillor Green Councillor Henry Councillor Hunt Councillor Johnson Councillor Karim Councillor Maw Councillor Metcalfe Councillor Mugglestone Councillor O’Brien Councillor Panchbhaya Councillor Ramsdale Councillor Saleh Councillor Sandringham Councillor Scuplak Councillor Seare Councillor Smith Councillor Suleman Councillor Tessier Councillor Thompson Councillor Vincent
AGAINST THE MOTION
Councillor John Blackmore Councillor Chohan Councillor Corrall Councillor Draycott Councillor Getliffe Councillor Hall Councillor Kitterick Councillor Lloyd-Harris Councillor Nurse Councillor Shelton Councillor Sood Councillor Thomas Councillor Wann Councillor Willmott
The Lord Mayor put the Motion to the vote and declared it carried, 27 votes for and 14 votes against.
79
The Lord Mayor declared the meeting closed at 9.26 p.m.
80
81