Agenda Item No: 2 S
Democratic Support Service PO Box 136 County Hall Northampton NN1 1AT
MINUTES of the Business Meeting of the NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL held at County Hall, Northampton on 20 September 2012 at 10.30am
PRESENT: Councillor John Bailey (Chairman) Councillor Larry Henson (Deputy Chairman)
Councillor Sally Beardsworth Councillor Stephen Legg “ Paul Bell “ Chris Lofts “ George Blackwell “ Chris Long “ Catherine Boardman “ Matt Lynch “ Julie Brookfield “ David Mackintosh “ Robin Brown “ Carolyn Maxted “ Mark Bullock “ Ken Melling “ Richard Church “ Andy Mercer “ Bob Civil “ Dennis Meredith “ Michael Clarke “ Chris Millar " Tony Clarke “ Marion Minney “ Jenny Conroy “ Gina Ogden OBE “ David Dean “ Steve Osborne “ Don Edwards “ Bill Parker “ Richard Giddings “ Bhupendra Patel “ Brendan Glynane “ Suresh Patel “ André Gonzalez De Savage “ Ron Pinnock “ Christopher Groome “ Alan Pote “ Mike Hallam “ Rupert Reichhold “ Stan Heggs “ Ron Sawbridge “ Alan Hills “ Bob Seery “ Sue Homer “ Judy Shephard “ Dudley Hughes “ Ben Smith “ David Hugheston-Roberts “ Heather Smith “ Belinda Humfrey “ Chris Stanbra “ Bernard Ingram “ Winston Strachan “ Joan Kirkbride “ Jay Walia “ 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 Laurie Gould, Monitoring Officer Paul Hanson, Committee Manager Alex Hopkins, Director of Customers, Communities & Learning Professor Stephen Horsley Stuart McCartney, Conservative Group Political Assistant Patrick Murray, Liberal Democrat Group Political Assistant Jenny Rendall, Democracy Officer (Minutes)
And 5 members of the public.
At the Chairman’s invitation, the Reverend David McConkey of All Saints Church, Northampton introduced himself and spoke about his Church pointing out County Hall was within his parish.
The Chairman then invited his Chaplain, the Reverend Richard Coles to lead the Council in prayers.
65/12 Apologies for non-attendance:
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Scott Edwards, Matt Golby, Andrew Grant, Rebecca Harding, Jim Harker OBE, Jane Hollis, John McGhee, Christopher Malpas, Bob Scott & Michael Tye as well as the Chief Executive and Director of Environment, Growth & Development.
66/12 To Approve and Sign the Minutes of:
(a) The Extraordinary Meeting of Council Held on Thursday 21 June 2012:
RESOLVED that: Council agreed the minutes of the extraordinary meeting of Council held on Thursday 21 June 2012
(b) The Business Meeting of Council Held on Thursday 21 June 2012:
RESOLVED that: Council agreed the minutes of the business meeting of Council held on Thursday 21 June 2012
67/12 Notification of requests by members of the public to address the meeting
The Chairman informed Council the following people had registered to speak:
Agenda Item No: 12(c) - Mr Fred Hensman
68/12 Declarations of Interest by Councillors:
At the Chairman’s invitation the Monitoring Officer, Laurie Gould explained the new regulations relating to making declarations of interest stating under the new code of conduct recently supplied to councillors, they need only declare an interest that had not already been recorded in the register of interests. They did not need to declare any interest already included in the register. New declarations should be added to the register within 28 days of the meeting. Disclosable pecuniary interests were required by law and appendix ‘a’ to the code listed what these were. They included spouses and partners but did not apply to siblings or children. The Council had voluntarily adopted the code relating to non-statutory disclosable pecuniary interests which came in 2 groups, the first was items affecting a person’s well-being or the well-being of family members or close associates. These were the rules relating to siblings. A non-statutory interest was one a member of the public would reasonably regard as so significant it was likely to prejudice a councillor’s judgement. Councillors making such a declaration should leave the meeting during the item but they might make representations or ask questions before leaving the
meeting.
A block dispensation had been given that day to councillors to enable them to discuss number 7(d) (Report by the Independent Panel for Councillors Allowances). Similar block dispensations would be granted as and when required to discuss items such as council tax.
Both Councillors Mark Bullock and Chris Stanbra declared an association with the Beanfield Community Centre managed by the member of the public speaking on agenda item number 12(c).
69/12 Chairman’s Announcements:
. The sad death of Mr John Ewart CBE, DL on 6 September 2012 was announced.
. At the Chairman’s invitation Councillor Gina Ogden referred to the meeting in June that year when John Ewart had been made an honorary alderman of the Northamptonshire County Council (NCC). He was a former county councillor, representing the Middleton Cheney Division from 1971 until 1995. He was the Conservative Group Leader between 1991 and 1995. He had been a very strong chairman of the Policy, Resources & Finance Committee, keeping control of the budget whilst considering the needs of residents. He rarely changed his policies, having a clear vision of what he wished to achieve. He formed a solid partnership with other senior leaders of the Council, John Lowther and Bill Morton. He lived and farmed in his division after retiring from engineering where he had been successful in both Huddersfield and India. He was enthusiastic and energetic, a gentleman, generous host and good friend that would be greatly missed.
At the Chairman’s invitation Councillor George Blackwell then paid tribute to John Ewart stating that although they had different backgrounds and political beliefs, he had great respect for him. He felt it difficult to talk about him without also mentioning John Lowther because they were very similar people who worked very well together. He persuaded Councillor Blackwell to join the governing body Moulton Agricultural College and he had found this to be very rewarding. Because of his engineering background John Ewart appreciated Councillor Blackwell’s work as a fullt-time elected officer of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers and regularly paid tribute to the work of this union, particularly its democratic structure. He concluded by stating he remembered him with much affection.
The Chairman then confirmed he had written on behalf of the Council to John Ewart’s widow. He also noted that although the funeral had taken place in private a memorial service would take place in the Church of St Peters & St Paul, Kings Sutton from 12noon on Monday 29 October 2012.
Council then observed a few moments silence in memory of John Ewart CBE.
. One of NCC’s Family Social Workers based in the Initial Contact Team had recently been presented with an award from Thames Valley Police for persuading a member of the public not to make a suicide jump. It was felt she had good communication skills and presence of mind as well as possibly some courage in doing this. At the Chairman’s invitation the Director of Adult & Children’s Services, Charlie MacNally endorsed all the Chairman had said stating she had demonstrated the role of a good Samaritan. He then invited Lorraine Gregory to the front of the Chamber where the Chairman presented her with the commendation and the Director of Adult &
Children’s Services presented her with a bunch of flowers. At the Director’s invitation, Lorraine Gregory stated she only did what she hoped anyone would do by approaching someone clearly threatening suicide, telephoning emergency services and waiting for them to arrive. . The Chairman’s garden party would take place from 3pm on Sunday 22 September 2012 at Great Harrowden Hall. . At the Chairman’s invitation, the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Joan Kirkbride announced the Leader of the Council had travelled to London that day to receive an award on behalf of the county which had been named ‘the most enterprising place in Britian’ by the Department of Innovation and Skills. This award recognised the Council’s individual approach to prosperity in the county, particularly its work in retaining the British Grand Prix at Silverstone. They had also earned the award for export, undertaking through the Northamptonshire Enterprise Partnership (NEP) and the establishment of a European investment team based in Brussels.
70/12 Petitions:
At the Chairman’s invitation, Councillor Carolyn Maxted presented a petition regarding a field in Laburnham Crescent, Kettering on behalf of residents of the Grange/Avondale area of Kettering. The field which was adjacent to the Crescent Community Centre contained a full size football pitch and would revert back to NCC ownership when the Beuccleugh Academy moved to a new site. It was understood this site would be developed and whilst the petitioners accepted that they requested the full size football pitch be retained. It was regularly used by local football groups and the football association held league matches on the site. Many groups were managed by volunteers for local youths who competed in competitions and learned new skills. The pitch, like the volunteers were considered to be a valuable resource for this deprived area. The community centre was originally built as a pavilion and provided changing rooms and café facilities to the groups. The pitch and centre were the ‘hub’ of many sporting and social events in the area and the revenue from the football was an integral part of the centre’s income. She considered this to be a ‘shining’ example of the big society as it was totally self-administering but its future would be compromised without the field and its revenue. Reference was made to a supporting e-mail (copies of which had been previously circulated) from the Chairman of the Kettering and District Weetabix Youth League. She concluded by stating the centre was unique being run for the people by the people and requested the full size pitch be retained.
The Chairman then invited Councillor Mike Hallam to present a petition on behalf of residents of Squires Walk in Northampton who stated the following: He had discussed this with the Cabinet Member for Infrastructure & Public Protection who had agreed to raise the issue with the Highways Department. The residents in this street had requested him as their divisional councillor to raise issues relating to potholes in the road and tall trees as well as the condition of the entrance to this road. The potholes had been filled and a date had been agreed for the work on the trees. When ‘patching’ work took place in Kettering Road, the surface at the entrance to Squires Walk was also marked for repair but then left when the work was undertaken in Kettering Road. This left residents feeling very disappointed.
RESOLVED that: Council noted the petitions presented by Councillors Carolyn Maxted and Mike Hallam.
71/12 Business Items (including Budget & Policy Framework Items, Appointments & Annual Reports):
(a) Youth Justice Plan 2012/13:
The Chairman invited Councillor Joan Kirkbride to introduce this report (copies of which had previously been circulated) who stated that as the Youth Offending Service (YOS) was a statutory multi-agency organisation all partners would be required to approve the Plan. A number of inspections had been undertaken during the year and as a result of these, Northamptonshire had been placed in the top quartile for achievement in the country. She considered performance during 2012 to have been excellent and referred to YOS aims as set out in the report.
The report was seconded by Councillor Catherine Boardman.
Councillors commented as follows: YOS had achieved much during a time when there had been issues in terms of resource and funding and motivation and recruitment of new staff. They were above the national average in terms of what was achieved in stopping young people from entering the offending service and re-offending. There was a plea for NCC as the largest funder to continue its funding to YOS. It was also hoped NCC would commend the service to the incoming Police & Crime Panel when funding from the Northamptonshire Police Authority ceased. It was suggested more could be done in terms of drugs and substance misuse rehabilitation, perhaps by working with representatives from Council on Addiction or a similar organisation. It was also suggested more could be done to attract staff from all backgrounds.
In reply Councillor Kirkbride stated NCC would consider the importance of this organisation when setting the budget. She also confirmed there were no barriers to anyone applying for work with YOS and she would forward comments regarding drugs and substance misuse.
RESOLVED that: Council approved the Youth Justice Plan 2012/13.
(b) Update and Revision of the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules (Part 4G of the Constitution):
At the Chairman’s invitation, Councillor Langley introduced this report (copies of which had been previously circulated) highlighting the following: The report noted changes in thresholds for contract tendering and had been rectified by the cross-party Councillor Services & Governance Working Group. As the procurement team were part of LGSS, the same changes had also been endorsed by NCC’s LGSS partner, Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC). This would also enable joint procurement. The revised rules followed European law. Many of the smaller tenders below £100K were given to local organisations. Whilst the threshold would be raised, there would still be a requirement for at least 1 of the 3 quotes received to be from a local supplier.
The report was seconded by Councillor Bob Seery who stated it would provide greater efficiencies from joint procurement through the alignment of the procedure rules with those of CCC. He also referred to a need to regularly review the benefits from joint procurement.
RESOLVED that: Council endorsed the revisions to the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules as stated in Appendix 1 to the Report.
(c) Treasury Management Report, Quarter One 2012-13:
At the Chairman’s invitation, Councillor Bill Parker introduced this report (copies of which had been previously circulated) who referred to amendments outlined in Section 1 to the report. He also felt the report demonstrated the control in managing the Council’s finances, particularly by the Treasury Management Team.
The report was seconded by Councillor Andrew Langley.
RESOLVED that: Council: 1) Noted the Treasury Management Report, Quarter One 2012-13; and 2) Approved the following amendment to the Annual Treasury Management Strategy and counterparty limit for Money Market Funds: Money Market Funds: AAA rated, £60million (up to £20million per Fund). Approximately 30% of the total investment portfolio).
(d) Report by the Independent Panel for Councillors’ Allowances:
At the Chairman’s invitation Councillor Joan Kirkbride proposed the report (copies of which had been previously circulated) highlighting the following: Allowances were never an easy issue for any council to discuss and there was a need to ensure they were set at the most appropriate level. The Panel considered allowances in view of the boundary changes that would take effect from the 2013 elections and members had responded well to the consultation. All councillors were encouraged to attend meetings of Cabinet and could claim travel expenses for doing so. Councillors attending a meeting as a substitute for a colleague could also claim travel expenses for that meeting. The number of councillors would reduce by 28% to 57 in 2013. The recommended increased basic allowance therefore took account of the larger area each councillor would represent from 2013. The recommended basic allowance was still significantly lower than the basic allowance paid by many English councils and it was also noted NCC had frozen its basic allowance since 2006. For the first time the basic allowance would also be index-linked. Guidance from the Department of Communities and Local Government had been followed. The significant time required of a member of the fostering and adoption panel had also been recognised in a recommended allowance of £4K per annum. The proposed scheme would save in excess of £85K per annum. Although the proposal was to implement the scheme from April 2013 officers would be asked to seek ways in which to implement it following the May 2013 elections.
The report was seconded by Councillor Christopher Groome who welcomed the review which he had felt had been due since he first joined the Council in 2009. He considered this report to be a realistic one which met the needs of Council and its members. He also warned against separating any parts of the review.
At the Chairman’s invitation, Councillor Brendan Glynane then proposed the following amendment:
“To amend the amounts proposed in the IPCA report for the following SRAs: Reduce Council Leader’s SRA by £4k to £28k Reduce Council Deputy Leader’s SRA by £2k to £19k Reduce Cabinet members SRAs by £1.5k to £17.5k Reduce Leader of the Principal Opposition Group by £1k to £14k
The resulting saving of approximately £19k to be added to the overall saving figure to the taxpayer”
In proposing the amendment Councillor Glynane stated he felt the previous scheme included too low a basic allowance making it difficult to attract those in work or from different backgrounds to the role of councillor and included special responsibility allowances (SRA’s) that were too high. He felt the top tier of SRA’s were still too high and therefore proposed his amendment which would achieve a further £19K of savings.
The amendment was seconded by Councillor Chris Stanbra.
In debating the amendment Councillors commented as follows: Some felt the amendment should be rejected in favour of the report by the Independent Panel because that had been well reasoned and based on significant research. It provided evidence for the recommendations made and councillors had been widely consulted. It was noted previous reports by an Independent Panel had been rejected. Some felt the recommendations in the report would encourage more residents to stand as councillors in local elections. It was suggested the next Council would be best placed to make decisions about allowances. Inflation linked allowances were welcomed. Some felt that as leading members of the Council, the Leader of the Council and Leader of the Opposition parties could set an example by reducing their special responsibility allowances (SRA’s).
Upon the vote, the amendment was defeated.
Debating the proposition councillors commented as follows: Some felt it unedifying for councillors to vote on their own allowances, particularly as MP’s no longer voted on their own allowance. It was suggested local authorities should lobby Government to change the process for setting councillors’ allowances. Concerns were raised about the adjustments that would be required should the implementation of the new allowances be delayed until after the 2013 county council elections. Some felt the recommendations could only be considered as a whole package because this was the only way to resolve issues such as an imbalance between the basic allowance and SRA’s and the need to attract people from all walks of life to the role of councillor. The provision for automatic annual reviews of allowances was considered to be a good part of the recommendations.
In reply Councillor Kirkbride stated delaying implementation until after the county council elections in May 2013 had been suggested because there would be fewer councillors from that date. She noted NCC councillors were amongst the lowest paid councillors in the country. There was probably never a good time to review allowances but she felt the Panel had undertaken good research and presented good evidence for their recommendations.
RESOLVED that: Council: 1) Noted the report on Members’ Allowances as prepared by the Independent Panel for Councillors’ Allowances; 2) Noted the savings in the Panel’s recommendations; 3) Accepted the recommendations of the Independent Panel for Councillors’ Allowances and implement those provisions as the Scheme of Members’ Allowances for Northamptonshire County Council with effect from 1 April 2013; 4) Formally revoked the existing Members’ Allowances Scheme with effect from 31 March 2013; and 5) Authorised the Monitoring Officer to implement the new scheme effective 1 April 2013 to reflect the outcome of the Council’s deliberations and to take any consequential action arising.
(e) Constitutional Appointments – Appointment of the Independent Person and Confirmation of the Chief Executive as the County Returning Officer:
At the Chairman’s invitation, Councillor Joan Kirkbride proposed the report (copies of which had been previously circulated) commending Mr Christopher Cook as the Council’s Independent Person with an allowance of £5,000 per annum as well as the Chief Executive as the County Returning Officer.
The report was seconded by Councillor Mike Hallam.
In answer to a query on the report it was confirmed the Chief Executive would receive no allowance for undertaking the role of County Returning Officer.
RESOLVED that: Council: 1) Confirmed the appointment of Mr Christopher Cook as the Council’s Independent Person as set out in paragraph 4 of the report; 2) Agreed an allowance of £500 per year be paid to the Independent Person as recompense for their time; and 3) Confirmed the Chief Executive as the County Returning Officer for the election of County Councillors and authorised the Chief Executive to appoint Deputy Returning Officers.
72/12 Opposition Priority Business:
At the Chairman’s invitation, Councillor Brendan Glynane moved the following motion:
"This Council notes that during the budget negotiations last year it was decided that the County Council would contribute £300,001 on a one-off basis to Northamptonshire Police to support efforts to tackle domestic violence This Council believes that ensuring the safety of residents is paramount, and in particular the protection of vulnerable residents from violence and domestic violence is a fundamental duty of both the Police and the Council This Council therefore urges the administration to bring forward a proposal as part of its budget for 2013/14 to convert this one-off item of expenditure into ongoing
expenditure to permanently support efforts by the Police to ensure the safety and security of residents and protect the vulnerable in Northamptonshire"
In moving the motion Councillor Glynane referred to the Government’s decision to include 16-18 year olds within this category which the Deputy Prime Minister had stated should help expose the true face of domestic violence which was much more widespread than many people thought. He felt this had increased the demand on police but much was still unreported. Reference was also made to the refuges the Council and other local authorities funded in order to support victims of domestic violence. He therefore felt the one-off expenditure of £300,001 should be made available to the new Police Commissioner.
The motion was seconded by Councillor Jenny Conroy who referred to children as the innocent victims of domestic violence. She voiced concern that children who witnessed abuse often became abusers themselves. She noted from her own experience of working with children who had witnessed domestic abuse that the support they required was tremendous.
Councillors commented as follows: It was noted the funding had been targeted at domestic violence and had been provided from the Council’s ear-marked reserves specifically the second home discount reserves. Concerns were raised that approving this motion could impose a priority in the new Police Commissioner. It was suggested this proposal would be a good way by which the Council could confirm its commitment to Community Safety. It was also noted the contributed to the Community Safety Partnership which would still exist after the Northamptonshire Police Authority had ceased. It was suggested by some that this type of assistance would be best considered as part of the budget setting process. Concerns were raised regarding how the proposal could be funded.
At this point Councillor Tony Clarke proposed under Rule 14d of Part 4 of the Constitution, that this proposal be referred to Cabinet.
This was seconded by Councillor Christopher Groome.
Upon the vote, the proposal to refer this to Cabinet was rejected.
In reply Councillor Glynane stated he did not feel accepting the motion would impose a priority on the Police Commissioner. He felt this motion would assist the Police with the additional resources required to meet the demand. He hoped that as Council was committed to supporting community safety the offer of funding could be considered as part of the budget process.
Upon the vote the motion was rejected.
73/12 Cabinet Business:
The Chairman invited the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Joan Kirkbride to introduce the report (copies of which had been previously circulated) who referred to the success of the Olympics and Paralympics and the competitions that would be arranged in schools as part of the legacy of these competitions. She congratulated the Northamptonshire Fire & Rescue Service for winning an award at the first-ever BBC 999
Awards stating that this and the award the Leader was collecting on behalf of the Council that day were examples of the many areas where the Council was achieving success.
Reference was made to written questions (copies of which had been previously circulated) and the answers provided (appendix 1 to the minutes). Answers to further questions were given as follows: Should councillors feel bus shelters in their division were not repaired in sufficient time, they could fund the repair and/or provision of a bus shelter from their empowering councillors funding. School competitions were considered to be a good way of inspiring young people to become involved in sport. The Council was working with as many schools as possible to encourage young people to become involved in sporting activities. It was hoped this enthusiasm could be passed to parents and children would also join sports clubs around the county. Northamptonshire Sport would be asked to forward details of all activities being arranged as part of the Olympic legacy. It was considered important to assist the clinicians leading the review of acute services in order to improve outcomes for patients not just in Northamptonshire but also the region. Bushes and grass verges on the county’s highways had been often overgrown that year because of the wet weather which had caused them to grow. Should they wish them to be pruned and mown more often they could fund this from their empowering councillors funding. Officer time to devote to heritage issues was limited and the current priority was Chester Farm. The Northamptonshire Enterprise Partnership were also working on the Council’s behalf to encourage tourism in the county.
RESOLVED that: Council noted: 1) The Report by the Leader of the Council; and 2) Responses to questions to the Cabinet.
74/12 Scrutiny Business:
At the Chairman’s invitation the Scrutiny Champion, Councillor Allen Walker presented the report (copies of which had been previously circulated) stating there would be a review of scrutiny arrangements to take account of the fact there would be fewer councillors to undertake the work after the 2013 county council elections.
In answer to a query on the report the Scrutiny Champion stated arrangements for submitting written and, stating verbal questions to Cabinet and Scrutiny were best reviewed by the Councillor Services and Governance Working Group.
RESOLVED that: Council noted the report from the Scrutiny Champion.
75/12 Motions Submitted by Councillors Under Rule 13.1:
At the Chairman’s invitation, Councillor Chris Lofts moved the following motion:
"This Council believes that in difficult economic circumstances it is crucial that the Council uses its resources to help people into work through developing skills, creating apprenticeships and supporting job creation This Council believes that if a yearly investment of £2m is made by Northamptonshire taxpayers into our local economy then there should be a greater focus on helping develop individuals' skills and opening up opportunities for those currently unemployed This Council is concerned at the latest figures from Northamptonshire Enterprise Partnership (NEP) showing that:
i) Of a target of 80 jobs created or safeguarded for the first quarter of the year, only 11 were created or safeguarded, a success rate of just 14% ii) Of the target relating to skills development (people supported) no-one has yet been supported in this way through work done by NEP iii) Of the target relating to apprenticeships created no-one has yet been supported in this way through work done by NEP.
This Council is further concerned that the yearly targets for skills development (50) and apprenticeships (10) are simply not sufficient enough to make a significant difference to the life chances and opportunities for those who need the support of the Council This Council calls on the administration to ensure that NEP does more to support the unemployed to develop skills and opportunities and requests a report back to Scrutiny with a detailed plan of action for increasing the targets for apprenticeships and skills development and how those increases will be met"
In moving the motion, Councillor Lofts voiced concerns that whilst it was good to receive awards, they made no difference to residents unless they also brought jobs to the county. Reference was made to 16,000 residents receiving job seekers allowance as of 1 August 2012, many of whom were aged below 25 years. He felt that despite national initiatives including 177,000 apprenticeships, the county were below national and regional data. He also referred to NEP performance figures which had not met targets. NEP had claimed the previous year that there had been a delay in commencing many of their employment schemes. Similarly this year, they had also quoted a ‘time lag’ in commencement. This motion called on the Council to note this poor performance and improve support to the unemployed young people in the county.
The motion was seconded by Councillor Richard Church.
Councillors commented as follows: It was noted NEP worked with a range of agencies including Job Centre Plus and various skills agencies as well as encouraging and supporting businesses to continue to providing jobs in the county. One of their key aims was to work with business and core skills providers to ensure the demand was met. Results should be examined over a long period of time, particularly in the current challenging economic climate. It was also noted Northamptonshire had been named as the most enterprising place in Britain. The Council’s prosperity agenda had been recognised as one that supporting local business, attracted inward investment and created new jobs. Some felt investment in Northamptonshire could be achieved in other projects to NEP. It was suggested much in terms of inward investment and job creation was already happening in the county as well as an investigation into NEP’s achievements. It was felt by some the Council should offer direct help to small and medium sized businesses to employ young people. Reference was made to a video made about the county’s tourism by the BBC. It was suggested NCC follow the example of Corby Borough Council who were committed to employing looked after children within their own services. Corby Borough Council’s rejection of regional pay awards because of the poor effect they had on staff salaries was also noted. It was noted NEP followed a 3-year plan for boosting the county’s economy. To date they had safeguarded almost 800 jobs and levered in more than £2million of investment to the county. Many local companies such as BMW, Tescos and Sainsburys had also committed to investing in the county and employing local
people. Some felt it was important to ensure the education system matched the needs of employers. Many employers stated local people were not employed in the areas relevant to their business and there was a need to resolve this issue by ensuring educational establishments provided relevant advice about qualifications and skills required for particular career paths as well as the opportunity to obtain those qualifications and skills. Procurement contracts issued by the Council did include a requirement to provide apprenticeships where possible. At least 1 apprenticeship was expected as part of every capital project. Looked after children would be assisted and encouraged to apply for apprenticeships. Reference was made to the University Technical Colleges which would provide many opportunities for young people to learn skills and obtain jobs, particularly in the high- tech motor industry. Some felt there was a need to focus more on providing opportunities for people to learn practical skills. It was noted the county had lower unemployment figures than the East Midlands Region. Reference was made to the Northampton Enterprise Zone which had been sponsored by the South East Midlands Local Enterprise Partnership. There had also been successful regeneration plans in Daventry and Corby with further regeneration in Northampton planned around the area of the railway station. Some felt that an organisation responsible for stimulating enterprise in the county should be held to account when they failed to deliver on their promises and meet their targets.
In reply Councillor Lofts stated that in August 2012 there had been 6,300 unfilled jobs advertised within the county’s job centres. He felt this was an indication of issues in the skills of local residents and urged councillors to refocus the work of NEP to assist those young people to obtain employment.
RESOLVED that: Upon the vote the motion was rejected.
The Chairman then invited Councillor Julie Brookfield to move the following motion:
“The Council calls upon the Members of Parliament representing Northamptonshire to use their best endeavours to secure a debate in Parliament on the subject of the closure of ambulance stations and other changes to ambulance services that have been proposed by the East Midlands Ambulance Service.”
In moving the motion, Councillor Brookfield stated she felt this to be a widespread concern and referred to delayed response times. She also acknowledged the forthcoming scrutiny review into these proposals.
The motion was seconded by Councillor Mark Bullock who noted the East Midlands Ambulance Service (EMAS) was a regional body but as there was no longer an East Midland Assembly, he felt the best way to raise issues was with Central Government. He felt the reduction in the number of ambulance stations would cause mayhem and he queried where the previous year’s demand had been compared to the current year’s resource plan. He felt services would be good where they were located close to the stations but not so good elsewhere in the county. He also felt fewer ambulance stations would result in ambulances rarely located in their hub and noted a hub was often a location such as a bridge on a motorway.
Councillors commented as follows: It was felt the proposals should be examined at different levels and all councillors were encouraged to access the consultation document on the EMAS website which set out reasons for the proposals. Councillors were also encouraged to comment on the proposals aside from the scrutiny review that would also comment on behalf of the Council. It was noted that in terms of this review the county was geographically placed at the bottom of the region but in terms of the Acute Services Review, the county was placed at the top of the region. Concerns were raised that the positioning of ambulances would favour urban areas more than rural ones. It was felt there was a need to ensure any changes enabled the relevant structure, funding and accountability to local people. Concerns were raised that when requesting an ambulance people did not always know the postcode of their location but the control centres currently required this information. There was a need therefore to ensure ambulance crews did not require this information from those requesting assistance.
In reply Councillor Brookfield thanked councillors for their support to the motion.
RESOLVED that: Upon a nem com vote the motion was accepted.
The Chairman then invited Councillor Mark Bullock to move the following motion:
“The Council calls upon the Department of Work & Pensions to immediately stop the use of St Katherine’s House in Northampton as a venue for holding appeals and other tribunals in respect of disability and other benefits and to work with the County Council and other public authorities to identify and use a range of properly accessible venues across the whole county instead of using one wholly inaccessible building in Northampton.”
At the Chairman’s invitation, Mr Fred Hensman addressed Council stating he represented people with disabilities who applied for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and attended appeals in relation to these applications. The Benefits Agency currently used Katherine House for hearings but this was not a disabled-friendly building only having 3 disabled parking spaces. The nearest alternative spaces were 300 metres away and the nearest bus stop was located even further away. Many wheelchair users were unable to use public transport and relied on others taking them to the hearing, helping them in and out of the car and escorting them to the hearing. Hearings were only held in Northampton and those travelling from areas such as Corby required a whole day to attend. He therefore felt the Benefits Agency should be encouraged to utilise local centres for hearings.
In moving the motion, Councillor Bullock thanked Mr Hensman for all of his hard work in supporting disabled people. He was disabled himself and had trained himself in the breadth of regulations so that he could support local people in his community. The Benefits Agency only held appeal hearings in Katherine House but the opinion of the Benefits Agency was often that if a person could attend a hearing in Katherine House they were not sufficiently disabled. He had discussed the issue with the Department of Work and Pensions who had only repeated their policy to use the one venue. He felt that as a countywide body they should be encouraged to use other venues around the county and the Council should be the body to send a clear message that this issue required a satisfactory resolution.
The motion was seconded by Councillor George Blackwell who also felt Katherine House was totally inaccessible. He did not believe it would be difficult to locate accessible buildings across the county, particularly in buildings utilised by the borough and district councils.
Councillor Andrew Langley agreed this was an issue that should be addressed but was concerned about the words ‘immediately stop’ within the motion as the consequences of an immediate cessation of this practice were unknown. He therefore proposed these words in the motion be replaced with the word ‘review’.
Councillor Bullock confirmed he would accept that change to the motion.
Councillors then debated the amended motion as follows: It was suggested disability groups/forums could be consulted on the most appropriate venues for hearings. It was suggested the current practice was discriminating against disability and when discussing the issue with the Benefits Agency, reference should be made to the Localism Act and the many facilities that already existed within communities. Provision of services to the disabled was considered to be something that should be fair and equitable and it was suggested many local councils could offer use of their buildings for hearings. Councillor Larratt as Chairman of the Disabled People’s Forum offered to discuss this meeting at their next meeting, to be held on 17 October 2012.
In reply Councillor Bullock thanked councillors for their support in attempting to resolve this issue.
RESOLVED that: Upon a nem com vote the motion was accepted.
At the Chairman’s invitation Councillor Winston Strachan then moved the following motion:
“The Council in its capacity as the lead local authority for transport issues in Northamptonshire condemns the recent large increase in rail fares and resolves that the Leader and or relevant Cabinet members seek urgent meeting(s) with the Members of Parliament for Northamptonshire to discuss ways in which political pressure can be applied on the Conservative Liberal Coalition government to mitigate the adverse effects these price increases will have on Northamptonshire rail travellers and the wider Northamptonshire economy.”
In moving the motion, Councillor Strachan referred to a pay freeze for the previous 3 years. He noted Central Government made the decision on increasing rail fares and the train companies only had the ability to maximise revenue for Government. He referred to a poor service that included late, dirty and/or cancelled trains and time consuming journeys.
The motion was seconded by Councillor Mark Bullock who stated he felt there was a need to resolve this issue which was compounded by rising parking prices. He felt it was unfair to the people of the county to raise the fares at a time of repeated pay freezes. He also noted that parking rates as well as rail fares were unregulated.
Councillors commented as follows: It was suggested increases in rail fares should be kept to a minimum. It was noted the rail structure in the county was partly regulated and partly
unregulated rail fares. Some felt increased rail fares would discourage people from using trains. Reference was made to the Rail Users Forum which was led by Brian Binley MP and met regularly. It was suggested they should be informed of this motion and comments made by councillors. Reference was also made to the Kettering Rail Users Group and the East Midlands Transport Users Forum and councillors offered to ensure the afore-mentioned rail users groups received a copy of any correspondence relating to this issue. Concerns were raised that as parking fees at stations had risen, many people parked their vehicles in streets close to the station. It was noted the county’s MP’s had already announced their concerns about increased rail fares. It was suggested that a rail user lobby could achieve a halt to the price increases just as the road user lobby had achieved a cancellation of a proposed fuel increase during the summer of 2012. It was further suggested the argument for this should be that halting the increase would assist to stimulate the local economy during difficult times. Some felt this and the other issues debated that day were important issues that affected many people and it was frustrating to feel that the Council could only effect change by lobbying the Government or local MP’s to speak on the county’s behalf.
In reply Councillor Strachan thanked councillors for their support of the motion.
RESOLVED that: Upon a nem com vote the motion was accepted.
76/12 Questions, if any to the Chairman of the Audit Committee:
The Chairman informed Council the Independent Chairman of the Audit Committee had been unable to attend the meeting that day but had confirmed he had no update to provide since the last meeting. Any questions by councillors could be forwarded to the Independent Chairman of the Audit Committee via the Chairman of the Council for a written response.
77/12 Questions, if any, to the Chairman of the Northamptonshire Police Authority:
At the Chairman’s invitation Councillors referred to the outgoing Chairman of the Northamptonshire Police Authority as follows:
Councillor Brendan Glynane felt that Mrs Deirdre Newham had fulfilled her role of Chairman of the Northamptonshire Police Authority (NPA) very well since taking over in 2007. He felt all members of the NPA had held Northamptonshire Police to account ensuring tax payers received value for money. He also requested the Chairman write to thank her for her hard work in keeping crime levels low in Northampton.
Councillor Julie Brookfield supported Councillor Glynane’s comments stating Mrs Newham had fulfilled her role splendidly, conducting business with integrity. She felt the NPA had responded well to the needs of the people of Northamptonshire. In her opinion it had been vital that the Council was represented on the NPA and she felt the loss of that link was sad. She also felt the membership of the NPA had included a good representation of the county in terms of skill and geography and members had acted as good governors of Northamptonshire Police.
Councillor Ben Smith stated he had enjoyed his 7 years on the NPA, particularly the last few when serving as Deputy Chairman. He was a supporter of the Police and Crime
Commissioners as he felt a failing of the NPA was that it had a low profile with residents. During his time as a member of the NPA he had only been approached twice by members of the public with a policing issue. He therefore felt the constraints under which the NPA operated made it difficult for the NPA to act as a link between Northamptonshire Police and the public. He considered Police Commissioner to be an important role and wished the successful candidate the best of luck. He concluded by stating the Chairman of the NPA had performed excellently in her role.
RESOLVED that: On behalf of the Council, the Chairman would write to the Chairman of the Northampton Police Authority to express thanks for her support during her term of office.
78/12 Meeting Dates 2013/14:
RESOLVED that: Council agreed to meet on the following dates during 2013/14: Thursday 16 May 2013 (AGM) (10am) Thursday 20 June 2013 (10.30am) Thursday 19 September 2013 (10.30am) Thursday 28 November 2013 (10.30am) Thursday 20 February 2014 (Budget Meeting) (10am) Thursday 20 March 2014 (10.30am) Thursday 15 May 2014 (AGM) (10am)
All agreed
79/12 Urgent Business:
There was none.
80/12 Exempt Business:
There was none.
There being no further business the Chairman closed the meeting at 2.50pm.
Jenny Rendall Democratic Support October 2012
Chairman’s Signature:- Date:-
Appendix 1
Questions submitted under rule 10.2
1. Question to Councillor Jim Harker, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Membership with responsibility for Community Leadership from Councillor Brendan Glynane:
What measures are this Council considering to reduce sickness absence?
Can the Leader confirm or deny rumours that the unions are being consulted on plans to remove pay for the first day taken of sick leave?
If the Leader can not deny these rumours, what consultation is being planned for the majority of staff at this Council who are not union members on a significant change to their terms and conditions?
The Council has had for some time measures to effectively manage sickness absence and ensure that the council does not lose many days as a result of sickness absence. We are also introducing in the coming weeks a new online absence management system to help managers in recording and managing sickness absence. Good management in this area is normal practice here and something you would expect any large employer to do.
On the question on payment for the 1st day of sickness, then the Council is looking at a range of issues to help reduce our employment costs to help meet the significant implications of next year’s budget. We are aiming to meet trade unions in October to discuss all options to help manage our rising employment costs. We are trying to find ways of reducing the number of redundancies and the loss of jobs that we had had to deal with over the last 2 years, and to do that we have to explore all other costs. The current saving requirement from this area is 14m over the next four years.
Until we have met with the unions – as we are legally obliged to do – I am unwilling to confirm the range of issues we will be proposing. We hope that trade unions will be able to contribute ideas to help us with this challenge. I expect to be able to let Council know of the progress in October with these discussions.
On the question of representation, the Councillor should be aware that the trade unions represent all employees in these consultation and negotiations, this is the same locally and it is on the national level for local government. So our first obligation is to the formally recognised trade unions. We also engage with our employees separately on any proposals and seek their views to support this. Again I expect this to be done as discussions start with trade unions in October.
2. Question to Councillor Heather Smith, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Customer & Community Services from Councillor Brendan Glynane:
The portfolio holder will have heard of the discovery of the remains believed to be of the Northamptonshire born king Richard the Third at the site of the Franciscan Grey Friars Monastery in Leicester, DNA test are due to take place in the next few months to confirm this.
Will the portfolio holder look at the possibility of building a cross county and cross party campaign to have Richard III’s remains returned to Fotheringhay, his birthplace, and have his remains laid to rest in the family church there?
We are excited to learn of the possible discovery of Richard III’s remains in Leicester. We await the results of the DNA tests with interest. However, we suggest that it would not be appropriate for the County Council to be leading or investing time in a campaign to bring the remains back to Fotheringhay at this point.
We need to look at the wider context of the discovery – the body (assuming it is Richard) has lain in Leicester for a few hundred years and Leicester University and the City Council have invested considerable time and energy into both recovering the remains and promoting this work. They have a vested interest in keeping the remains in Leicester. The Richard III Society has been involved with this process, and I believe the monument to Richard in Leicester Cathedral was paid for by the Richard III Society, so that is a strong contender for any reburial. Meanwhile, the international Richard III Foundation is suggesting York Minster, and another possibility would be Westminster Abbey.
With this level of interest and ‘competition’ the chances of Northamptonshire establishing its ‘claim’ are very low. It might not be a worthwhile use of our limited resources/capacity. However, we would be pleased to work with the local Richard III Society if they decided to commemorate the discovery locally. For example, if they decided to add a new interpretation panel at Fotheringhay, to bring the story of the king’s links to that place up- to-date.
3. Question to Councillor Heather Smith, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Customer & Community Services from Councillor Brendan Glynane:
Northamptonshire County Council, has worked with the Naseby Battlefield Trust, to promote the battlefield, and the English Civil War, and tourism in the county can the portfolio holder inform the Council what progress has been to date and the potential to attract visitors to the county?
The Naseby Battlefield Trust has been working for some years on its plans to establish a visitor centre at Naseby. There is no doubt that there is much interest in the civil war and the Battlefield. The Council (both officers and members) has had meetings with the Trust on a number of occasions over the years. We are happy to liaise with them as their plans develop. We also look after Naseby Monument and Naseby obelisk that are key visitor attractions.
We note that Naseby is one of a number of heritage projects in the county and the council’s priority in terms of developing users’ interest and engagement with heritage is through its own site of Chester Farm.
In terms of the economic impact of heritage-based tourism, council officers work closely with NEP in terms of supplying them with information to help promote the county as a destination. The archives service has also initiated a partnership project called Northamptonshire Roots – an ancestral tourism project. We know many people come to Northamptonshire tracing their family history but that they also want to find out about how they lived, what their home county was like in the past etc. The first phase of the project was to raise awareness among heritage providers in the county of the existence of these ancestral tourists and ensure we were linking up our heritage ‘offer’. We are just about to relaunch a website targeting ancestral tourists. The next phase of the project is working
with accommodation providers to get an offer that can be marketed. This is likely to be focussed initially around boot and shoe ancestry.
4. Question to Councillor Andre Gonzalez de Savage Cabinet Member with responsibility Infrastructure & Public Protection from Councillor Christopher Groome:
Would the Cabinet Member please update Council with the latest data on bus subsidies and usage and comparisons with earlier years? Are any changes envisaged as a result of these figures?
The projected outturn for public bus subsidy for 2012/13 is £1.4m and the patronage information is set out below. There are a wide range of factors that make comparisons year on year are almost impossible to make, however I am happy to meet with Councillor Groome to discuss the matter further.
NCC Supported service patronage summary 2011-12: New network full year. Sep 2011 Oct 2011 Nov 2011 Dec 2011 Jan 2012 Feb 2012 Mar 2012 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 33/a Northampton-Quinton-Hartwell-Milton Keynes 4,869 4,966 5,559 4,890 4,713 4,281 5,022 4,565 4,873 4,900 4,864 38 Northampton-Sywell-Pyrtchley-Kettering 9,723 9,891 10,666 9,036 9,073 8,890 10,078 8,515 9,762 8,255 9,389 43 Northampton-Cogenhoe-Wollaston/Bozeat 1,402 1,594 1,842 1,850 1,787 1,648 1,746 1,634 1,732 1,662 1,690 60 Northampton-Spratton-Guilsborough-Welford 1,900 1,900 1,950 1,950 1,950 2,000 2,000 2,017 2,265 2,296 2,023 62 Northampton-Scaldwell 55 48 95 94 86 96 102 74 101 87 84 67 Gretton-Corby-Cottingham 1,000 1,050 1,050 1,100 1,100 1,200 1,200 1,113 1,400 1,190 1,140 86 Northampton-Pattishall-Greens Norton-Towcester 1,737 1,871 1,709 2,023 1,722 1,743 1,960 1,796 1,981 1,768 1,831 87 Northampton-Collingtree-Stoke Bruerne-Towcester 1,387 1,977 1,695 1,490 1,604 1,521 1,716 1,715 1,968 1,632 1,671 90/a Yardley Gobion-Milton Keynes 350 370 380 390 400 400 400 414 406 399 391 499 Brackley-Croughton-Aynho-Banbury 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 G1 Northampton-Bringtons 79 91 124 147 80 119 76 84 114 104 102
8 Northampton-Silverstone-Brackley-Bicester 23,534 25,467 26,501 23,749 24,178 23,008 26,161 25,000 27,000 26,500 25,110 96 Northampton-East Haddon-Long Buckby-Crick-Rugby 10,385 8,485 8,438 8,481 8,497 8,503 9,772 9,077 9,539 8,604 8,978
CountyConnect C16 NeneValley CountyConnect (South) C24 NeneValley CountyConnect (North) C59 Welland Valley CountyConnect C96 Daventry CountyConnect (North) C200 Daventry CountyConnect (South) C88 South Northants CountyConnect (Towcester-Brackley) C500 South Northants and Upper Cherwell CountyConnect (Banbury-Brackley) TOTAL 2169 3719 3399 2801 4110 3207 3363 4034 3387 3162 3921 60,540 63,379 65,358 59,951 61,250 58,566 65,546 61,988 66,478 62,509 63,142
Italics denote estimates
5. Question to Councillor Andre Gonzalez de Savage Cabinet Member with responsibility Infrastructure & Public Protection from Councillor Chris Stanbra:
What is the council's performance target for the repair of bus shelters for which it is responsible?
How does this compare to best practice and how does actual average time taken to affect a repair compare to the target?
The County Council does not have a dedicated budget for bus stop maintenance. A small capital budget for roadside infrastructure is utilised to address maintenance issues arising with bus stops the County Council is responsible for. There are no target performance indicators set for bus shelter maintenance.
It is important to note that the majority of bus shelters in the county are not the responsibility of the County Council.
Responsibility for the majority of bus shelters in the county falls into three main external categories:
ClearChannel. ClearChannel are a commercial operator who provide and maintain shelters in return for advertising revenue. They own and maintain virtually all shelters in Northampton Borough, Kettering Borough and Wellingborough, managed by the second- tier authority. Parish Councils. In most rural settlements where shelters do exist they are maintained by the relevant Parish Council. Parish Councils service approximately as many shelters as ClearChannel. Borough Councils. Daventry District Council in particular are responsible for a significant number of bus shelters in their area.
NCC has responsibility for relatively few shelters. These are mainly located at the bus interchanges provided through the LTP at Kettering and Wellingborough. In practice the bulk of shelter maintenance issue that have arisen lately have concerned these locations; simply because they represent the largest urban concentration of shelters in our purview. There remains some doubt as to whether CBC took responsibility for the shelters installed as part of CorbyStar, and I will investigate this further and report back to Cllr Stanbra.
We are now proactively trying to get developers to agree arrangements for developer- provided bus shelter maintenance with second and third-tier authorities, either through arrangements with ClearChannel in towns or with Parish Councils in rural areas.
We order shelters from a limited pool of quality suppliers, in particular from Queensbury, Trueform and Littlethorpe. The latter hardwood shelters are provably the most durable as well as being more attractive, and acceptable to local stakeholders, especially Parish Councils. We are working towards minimising our shelter maintenance exposure and will not accept shelters with no clear supplier covenant or warranty on the public highway. We are being judicious as to whether we require shelters at all from developers, especially if it is likely to result in a maintenance liability further down the line. We do take significant commuted sums of £5,000 per shelter where it is unavoidable that we take responsibility for a shelter from a developer.
6. Question to Councillor Andre Gonzalez de Savage Cabinet Member with responsibility Infrastructure & Public Protection from Councillor Dennis Meredith:
How many cuts per year to the grass on Highways verges does the county council pay for?
The number of cuts varies according to speed of the road, road classification, road usage and safety issues. Where visibility is required for safety then the grass will be cut as needed. For other areas the minimum number of cuts will either be three or two. This is detailed further in the table below and includes a comparison with the recommendations in the National Code of Practice for Highway Maintenance.
Location Policy/Standards Code of Practice recommendations
Urban Vision splays and other Cut as necessary to Authorities should (speed busy areas where ensure safety - develop local standards limit visibility is required for Minimum of 3 based on fitness for 40mph safety cuts/year purpose to provide the and less) All other grass area 3 cuts/year level of service required adjoining carriageways and assessment of the footways and cycleways risk of this being compromised by failure. Rural At visibility splays, Cut as necessary to 2 cuts/year depending junctions, gaps in central ensure safety - upon rate of growth reserves, insides of Minimum of 3 bends. cuts/year on strategic Where there is and main roads considerable pedestrian All other roads :- 2 traffic, e.g. cuts/year schoolchildren. Other areas to provide adequate stopping sight distances. All other grass area 2 cuts/year 2 cuts/year
adjoining carriageways
7. Question to Councillor Andrew Grant Cabinet Member with responsibility for Children, Learning & Skills from Councillor Sally Beardsworth
Could the Cabinet member inform the Council of the arrangements made for the provision of sports, play and recreational facilities for those children who will be attending the new annex to Abington Vale school at the purchased office block in Cliftonville Road?
Sport is very important part of the curriculum and the head teacher at Abington Vale Primary school is particularly keen to ensure that all children have access to a wide range of sporting activities. The planning team are instigating a number of measure to ensure that the children attending the school at Stirling House have access to adequate sports facilities. These include: a space suitable for whole class play activities is being created inside the school. making sure that the outside space at Stirling House is used to it’s full potential by installing play equipment that encourage the children to become active. the building is being developed so that the potential for a safe and secure play space on the roof can be looked into. arrangements with local schools to share their outside play facilities have been made