201

EASTLEIGH BOROUGH COUNCIL

Minutes of a meeting of the Council held at the Civic Offices, Leigh Road, on Thursday, 21 October 2010 at 7:00 pm

PRESENT:

The Mayor, Councillor Caldwell (Chairman); Councillors Airey, Bloom, A Broadhurst, Mrs Broadhurst, Clarke, Cross, Day, Mrs Fraser, Goodall, Grajewski, Holden-Brown, Holes, House, Mrs Hughes, M Hughes, Ingram, Kyrle, McNulty, Mignot, Norgate, Noyce, Olson, O'Sullivan, Scott, G Smith, R Smith, Sollitt, Tennent, Thornton, Wall, Mrs Welsh and Wright

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Broughton, Craig, Davies-Dear, Hughes, Irish, Moore, Pretty, Roling, Mrs Sollitt, Thomas and Winstanley

335. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

The Mayor advised that he had the pleasure of welcoming the Queen to the Borough when she arrived at Eastleigh Airport, on her way to the Queen Elizabeth naming ceremony at docks.

The Mayor then congratulated Laura Edwards from Dynamo School of Gymnastics in Hamble, who helped the England Team win a silver medal at the recent Commonwealth Games. The Mayor also congratulated the Council’s Head of Culture, Cheryl Butler who would be receiving an Honorary Fellowship from the University of at a ceremony on 22 October.

336. MINUTES

RESOLVED -

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 July 2010 be agreed as a correct record.

337. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Scott declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item 8(o) (Minutes - , and Horton Heath Local Area Committee on 13 October 2010). The planning application at that meeting was for land in his ownership.

338. RECOMMENDATIONS (INCLUDING CALL-INS) REQUIRING DECISION

Consideration was given to the following Minutes:

(a) Cabinet - 9 September 2010

Annual Report on Treasury Management 2009/10 (Minute 205) CIP Strategy Review and Schemes Approval (Minute 206) 202

(b) Eastleigh Local Area Committee - 27 July 2010

Review of Eastleigh Borough Council (Eastleigh Town Centre) Alcohol Consumption in Designated Public Places Order, 2009 (Minute 291)

(c) Cabinet - 14 October 2010

It was noted that there were no recommendations from this meeting.

RESOLVED -

That the recommendations contained in Minutes 205, 206 and 291 be agreed.

339. REVIEW OF THE MEMBERS' ALLOWANCES SCHEME

Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services concerning a review of the Members’ Allowance Scheme by the Independent Review Panel.

The Panel, consisting of Helen Cleare, Senior HR Consultant at RSM Tenon, Michael Knott, JP and Rose Morton, Chief Executive of Eastleigh Citizens Advice Bureau, produced an interim report for the Council meeting on 22 July 2010 as the Cabinet had made a recommendation to the Council to freeze Members Allowances for two years, subject to the Panel’s recommendations. This proposal was agreed by the Council along with a second resolution to not pay the element of the basic allowance (£300) which was held back until the completion of three training sessions, in the years 2011/12 and 2012/13 to make a contribution to the Council’s budget savings.

The Independent Review Panel took into account the current economic climate, proposals announced by the new Government and the decision by the Council to freeze Members allowances for two years. In accepting this, the Panel felt the current scheme largely remained relevant and acceptable but that it should be reviewed in 12 to 18 months to allow consideration of changes to the Council’s committees and again after the two year pay freeze.

RESOLVED -

(1) That the recommendations in the report from the Independent Panel on Members’ Allowances be agreed, subject to a future Panel being convened as and when required;

(2) That these form an updated Scheme of Allowances and that this be applied retrospectively to 1 October 2010; and 203

(3) That the agreed recommendations be drawn together by officers into an updated Scheme of Allowances booklet; and

(4) That officers be authorised to make any necessary changes to the Council’s Constitution.

340. CABINET STATEMENTS

Councillor Airey, Cabinet Member for Transport and Streetscene, advised that at the last Environment Scrutiny Panel meeting there was considerable discussion with those bus operators present about the future of the Bus Service Operators Grant. This was paid by Government as a fuel rebate and was worth a considerable amount of money to the industry. In the Spending Review statement the previous day there was reference to grants to bus operators. The Government had decided on a 20% reduction over 3 years beginning in April 2012. The decision was much better than either hoped for or expected and to some extent reflected the success of the very considerable lobbying by the industry, MPs and Councils – including Eastleigh.

Councillor Bloom, Cabinet Member for Environment, informed Members on sustainability issues. First, the 10:10 project held a special day of activities on 10 October 2010. Eastleigh was one of the 10:10 launch councils which aimed to reduce CO2 by 10% by the end of 2010. Eastleigh was well on the way to achieving this target as energy consumption was down in key buildings, depot miles were down, and corporate miles were dramatically down as use of the car pool was proving so popular and a third car was about to be added to the pool, and flights were down by 73%. To mark the 10.10.10 day, a film show was held at The Point and Councillor Bloom thanked Jane Altounyan for all her hard work.

Councillor Bloom attended the Eastleigh Transition Network AGM and advised that the group was proving very successful. A Chandler’s Ford group had been set up and it was hoped that a Group would soon follow. With regards to Fair Trade, Councillor Bloom informed Members that this was working well in the borough. However, proposals to set up a -wide Fair Trade network had stalled following a decision by Hampshire County Council not to support the network due to concerns of impact on Hampshire farmers.

Finally, Councillor Bloom requested that Members encourage the public to recycle their Halloween pumpkins in the brown bins. Participation in the brown bin scheme was at 43% and overall recycling was at 47%, aiming for 50% by the end of the year. Glass recycling participation was up to 86%, however there was another 14% to target.

In response to a question from Councillor Sollitt regarding the use of brown bins by new households, particularly with regards to the South Street development, Councillor Bloom advised that the Council had made use of a Government job scheme which provided young people to go door to door and talk to residents about recycling. This had proved successful and would continue during the autumn. 204

Councillor Wall, Cabinet Member for Business and Skills, advised that local residents throughout the ‘SO’ postcode area could now access an ethical savings and low cost loans service from Solent Credit Union, following a merger between Eastleigh and Solent Credit Unions. This was a not for profit organisation that provided savings and loan schemes to around 750 members who benefitted from a wide range of services. Supported by Southampton City Council, Eastleigh Borough Council, First Wessex Housing and the Department of Work and Pensions, the organisation aimed to use resources from a new office in Southampton to support members by providing a five day a week enquiry and processing service in the near future. A drop-in at the Eastleigh Town Centre offices would also be available on Saturdays between 10am and 12noon, and existing members would be able to pay in their savings or loan repayments at the cash desk. Further details were available at www.solentcreditunion.co.uk.

Councillor Wall then informed Members that as part of its work programme, Prosperity Scrutiny Panel had listed a number of issues to focus on including improving employment skills. The Council was aiming to target this area by developing an integrated employment and advice centre. This ‘hub’ for service providers would promote sharing of resources and expertise and reduce duplication. It would also provide a focus for training and employment advice services, a permanent base where people could go for advice and help and provide a venue for community based training and development to be used by different agencies. This had been discussed with local agencies, Barton Peveril and Eastleigh Colleges, First Wessex, Hampshire County Council Adult Learning Services, Wheatsheaf Trust and other members of the Community Learning Partnership, and met with a very positive response but further work had been hampered by the lack of a suitable, affordable venue. A venue was close to being secured and funding for this was available over the next 3 years through of the use of existing Section 106 contributions, the criteria for which is use “in respect of training and employment, to include the provision of new employment workspace.” £73,000 of this funding was agreed by Cabinet in March 2009 to provide help to individuals facing redundancy or made redundant for re-training, job search and interview skills, providing tailored long term support and continuity to people who needed assistance to gain employment. Currently approximately £50,000 of this fund was unallocated. Although this would not last indefinitely it was hoped to raise further Section 106 contributions for training and employment, in line with the Policy Framework being agreed by PUSH, thus helping to ensure the long term sustainability for this project. There was also the possibility of some capital costs for fitting out the centre and for equipment and resources and would be resourced either from the £50,000 Section 106 funding or from grants available from UK Online or other external funding sources.

Councillor Broadhurst, Cabinet Member for Leisure, advised that as a result of £80,000 invested from the CIP, Country Park High Hill play area had been almost completely renewed in recent weeks, and it 205 now had a completely new look, and featured a climbing rock and nets, tunnels, new swings and other equipment which was already proving very popular with visitors. A new agility trail would also be installed in the adjacent woods following construction of the Go Ape course next spring.

Since planning permission was issued in July, work had been going on to finalise details of the Go Ape course and improvements to the car park at Itchen Valley Country Park, and applications for discharge of planning conditions had been submitted. Preparation of a contract for the car park improvements was under way, and construction of the car parks and course was expected to begin in late November, and the course was expected to open at Easter next year.

The Council had a visit from a Big Lottery Grants Officer who visited recent play projects and commented very favourable on the Play Champions scheme, which was about young people getting to know all about the different facets of play. The Play Champions had gained many skills and passed on their knowledge to others.

Eastleigh’s Sport and Physical Activity Alliance was on a quest to find and celebrate individual excellence, team achievement as well as recognise those people who worked tirelessly ‘behind the scenes’ to provide the great sporting opportunities that were available across the . This would be the first Eastleigh Sports Awards for over 20 years and was a key event in Eastleigh’s journey towards the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. There were 12 award categories including Junior Sportsperson, Senior Sportsperson, Junior Disability Sportsperson, Senior Disability Sportsperson, Junior Team of the Year, Senior Team of the Year, Coach of the Year, Official of the Year, Junior Volunteer of the Year, Senior Volunteer of the Year, Service to Health and finally Service to Sport. The nomination deadline was Monday 6 December and could be done online at www.eastleigh.gov.uk/sportsawards.

In conclusion, Councillor Broadhurst added his congratulations to Cheryl Butler, which was well deserved recognition for all her efforts.

Councillor Fraser, Cabinet Member for Health, congratulated the 77 staff and councillors who participated in the Global Walking Challenge. The 11 teams averaged 14,000 steps a day, amounting to 49,000 miles in total. The success of the teams has resulted in 77 free places for children from Nightingale and Norward Primary Schools to participate in the Junior Global Walking Challenge. Councillor Fraser then advised on the activities being undertaken during National Alcohol Awareness Week.

Councillor House, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Resources, informed Members that Colin Peters, Head of Development Control was retiring at the end of October and thanked him for all his hard work in a career which spanned 50 years in local government. Councillor House then gave an update on the Spending Review. While it was true to say 206 that the full details that impact on the Council would not be known for some weeks, the broad direction was clear following the statement by the Chancellor the previous day, and a string of related announcements that had emerged subsequently.

The headline position for local government was a reduction in grant from government of 29% over the next four years. The Eastleigh details are not yet known, but this level was higher, but not much, than the Council had planned for. Comments on the implications of the grant loss would follow but Councillor House emphasised the need to be clear that this was not a 29% spending cut for the Council; it had no impact on council tax or other council income.

The Council’s net revenue budget in this year was just under £14m. Of this sum, just under £8m was government grant. So a loss of 30% of this grant equated to roughly £2.5m lost income, or around 18% of the Council’s net budgets. But the Council would also be losing other previously ring-fenced grants and may lose further funding as a result of the transfer of concessionary travel to the County Council in April 2011.

Following the June Emergency Budget it was estimated that taken together the Council should plan for the loss of £4m of income. The figures announced in the Spending Review were therefore broadly in line with expectations. It appeared that a third or more of the reduction would come in the first year, 2011/12. The consequences of this phasing had yet to be considered but would be done so carefully when the full local details were clear.

Over the summer the consequences of these changes for the Council had been looked at. This Council has had a head start over many local authorities for two reasons.

Firstly, this Council already had an efficiency strategy in place which looked to make savings of 3% each year in its total spend. Secondly there was the benefit of the Council’s asset management and acquisition strategy that increasingly provided enhanced levels of income to the Council. Councillor House then confirmed that the Council was looking to add Eastleigh House in Upper Market Street to its property portfolio and it was hoped that the acquisition would be completed over the coming weeks.

Nevertheless, the challenge to take £4m from the budget had been a tough one. The Council had been guided by principles. Firstly, that reviewing spending would be led by the Council’s priorities of prosperity, health, and environment. Secondly, that the Council would look to protect front-line services. And finally that the Council would look to minimise service reductions that impacted on vulnerable groups in the community. What’s more, to remove uncertainty, the Council has committed to achieving the four-year reductions in three years, and maintain its capital programme. 207

These tests had been met. It had not been easy. There were some areas of detail to be resolved over the coming months, but a broad set of proposals had been worked through between staff and Cabinet members. There would be some areas of Council activity that would have to be accepted that good is good enough, where in the past the Council had striven for excellence. But there would not be significant cuts to frontline service provision. The Council would, sadly, be losing some staff. The plans for efficiency savings had previously been based on natural staff turnover, but in the light of changed circumstances there would now be a small number of staffing taking voluntary redundancy, a small number bringing forward retirement, and in what was hoped would not be much more than a handful of cases, compulsory redundancies. What there wouldn’t be at the Council, because of the approach taken, was large scale redundancies or services stopped. So please do take care when you read statements in the press of 1 in 10 jobs being lost in local government. That’s not the position in Eastleigh, because of the planned approach to savings and increased income.

The Spending Review brings other changes. There will be fewer ring- fenced grants, which is welcomed. Local government needs the freedom to spend to meet local priorities, not targets set by Whitehall mandarins.

Significant changes to the delivery of affordable housing would be achieved through introducing flexible tenancies closer to market rents. The commitment from the Coalition Government was that more affordable units would be delivered than under Labour. This commitment was welcomed and Eastleigh would want to play its part in increasing provision of affordable housing. There could well be a role for the Council boosting the private rented sector which in turn helped economic growth through allowing a more mobile workforce to develop.

New powers to borrow against future business tax revenues, known as Tax Incremental Funding or TIF, will allow the Council to plan for business growth. This could be a critical tool in unlocking land around the railway works, which the Council had been so close to achieving before the recession eroded property values.

From 2013 Council Tax Benefit policy would be devolved from central government to local government. This must be right. Government should let go from the centre and allow local councils to set their own policies.

In line with the Coalition Agreement, the Government had committed to help local authorities freeze Council Tax next year. Those councils that freeze council tax will receive a grant equivalent to 2.5% of council tax for each year of the Spending Review period.

There were some areas of small print that needed to be checked, most significantly how town and parish council precepts would be considered as in the past these have been taken as being district level expenditure. Subject to this checking process, a recommendation would be made to 208

Cabinet that Eastleigh’s Council Tax in 2011/12 be frozen, and return to the Council Tax Guarantee of inflation minus 1% from 2012. There would be no point freezing Council Tax next year, only to increase it by more the following year. The Council would continue to be transparent in funding local services and in its charges to residents.

Councillor House then went on to highlight planning for the future. Cabinet in July agreed to recommendations to abandon the South-East Plan’s proposals for a Strategic Development Area north of Hedge End. Council would be aware that PUSH had been carrying out a feasibility study on the SDA, and that this was published in the summer. To ensure a proper record was kept of this, a report was going to Cabinet in November to formally receive the PUSH study and likely to endorse again the decision taken in the summer.

With regards to the future, some people had taken the decision to abandon the South East Plan as an indication that no development would be taken forward in the Borough. As was said in the July Cabinet report, that was not the case. The Council took its responsibility as a planning authority seriously, and recognised that it had a duty to address genuine housing need. What’s more, there was still a legal requirement to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land and produce a plan showing development sites to meet local need for fifteen years ahead. So work has continued with neighbouring authorities on looking at the future economy and what, in turn, housing need may be. PUSH would be completing its work on a future economic development strategy for South Hampshire over the winter, and sometime after that this Council would need to consider future housing numbers.

But planning was a slow process, and so the Council needed to agree a timetable to produce a new Core Planning Strategy. The report to Cabinet in November set forward a process that completed this Strategy including agreed future sites through to 2030, for spring 2014. If 2014 felt a long time away, well, it is! But much of that time would be taken up in public consultation, considering the views of the community and by the Planning Inspectorate considering the proposals. Unlike the South-East Plan, the Council wanted this to be a community led project. So over the winter and through the spring, discussions will start with Town and Parish Councils, and other local interested parties, about their thoughts for the future of their communities. This should give the Council, before the summer, and after considering PUSH’s reports, a sense of need, a sense of local priorities, and a clear direction to next autumn put forward serious options to the Council’s communities.

Hampshire County Council’s Minerals and Waste Plan would also have to be taken into account, which the County wanted to consult on later this year, and fast-track through planning processes during 2011. Of course, this Council may not agree with the County Council’s proposals, particularly if the County persists with its proposals for gravel extraction potentially followed by housing at Hamble Airfield. But the County’s position needs to be understood, so as to challenge it where necessary in this Council’s thinking. 209

What the Council’s strategy process will do is to look at environmental issues as well as economic growth, at waste minimisation and renewable energy, at future retail needs, at the provision of school places and health facilities, all alongside housing and employment. For those councillors who have not worked through a Local Plan process there will be plenty to think about. The Council wants and needs everyone to be involved.

Finally, Councillor House advised on the future of the Civic Offices. It had been recognised in the past that the Council was situated in the wrong place. The sincerity of those who planned the building back in the 1970s was not doubted, but it was in the wrong place to most easily meet the needs of those of the Borough’s residents who most needed the Council’s services – those chasing their position on the housing register, those needing help with council tax or housing benefit, those concerned about residents’ parking or bus passes. It did not have great public transport links, and was a brisk 15 minutes walk from Eastleigh town centre, the bus and rail station, along with all the shops and services in the town.

It was also known that with the construction methods on hand in the 1970s, the building was something of an environmental disaster. However much the lighting had been improved and CHP added to improve the Council’s energy credentials, it was still too hot in summer and too cold in winter, and when the heating was turned on in the autumn the only way of cooling some offices down was to open the windows, letting all that heat out. It had been known for a few years that there would come a point when the Council would have to take a decision on bringing the building up to a standard that made it fit for the future, or considering moving. After taking advice, it was also known that through better use of space the Council could occupy a much smaller footprint than this building. That’s through better space planning, not through requiring staff to work from home or hot desk as they do at the County.

When these issues were last looked at a few years ago, the figures did not add up. Back then, the Council owned no real space in the town centre, and had to consider potentially major changes to this building, or building brand new offices in the town. The position had since changed. Firstly, it was clearly known that there was a need to occupy smaller offices. With these times of austerity, the Council certainly should be occupying a smaller space. Secondly, the Council had a number of properties in the town that potentially could meet its needs, with some modernisation. Thirdly, the Council had made big strides forward with town centre regeneration, and wanted to go further, getting more people working and shopping, eating and enjoying themselves in Eastleigh town centre. Finally, whatever was done, the Council ought to be considering sharing a public space with other public sector organisations, coming closer to creating a “one-stop shop” for public services. Why not bring the CAB into the space? How about the police, or some health services? There were lots of options.

210

So the Council was in a position where it could make a choice. Continue as it was, making do and mending, knowing that one day the Council would face a truly massive repair bill. But that was not a long-term strategy, as this could result in major costs at the top of the next property boom. The Council therefore had two choices. To either properly repair the Civic Offices building, or improve a building in the town centre. A number of ideas had been looked at, and it was expected o bring a report to November Cabinet, with the scrutiny panel ahead of Cabinet, exploring these options to enable the Council to reach a decision at its December meeting.

If the Council goes down the route of moving to the town centre, there were a number of essentials; firstly, being more accessible to more people that need the Council’s services, closer to major public transport links and shops and services; secondly the Council must fund any change without reducing services to its residents, or increasing Council tax and thirdly the Council must, in turn, make the current site available for more intensive development, protecting more of our countryside from building. But be clear, there was an “if” at the start of the last paragraph. No decisions had been made yet: those were for Cabinet to recommend to Council.

In response to questions from Councillor Wall regarding the cut in grant versus the cut in spending and regeneration in Eastleigh town centre as a whole not just focussing on Eastleigh House, Councillor House replied that the cut in grant equated to 29% but the cut in spending for the Council was approximately 18%. With regards to Eastleigh House, there were benefits to be realised as it neighboured Wessex House and could encompass combined facilities management and increased underground car parking. Reference was also made to the new development by Travelodge and its arrangement with the Wagon Works, situated next door, which would provide breakfasts for guests.

In response to questions from Councillor Olson regarding the condition of Eastleigh House, proposals for the Sainsbury’s site and addressing concerns of relocating from the current Civic Offices site, Councillor House advised that the poor condition of Eastleigh House had been recognised and would be addressed to ensure that it maximised its potential. With regards to the Sainsbury’s site, the Council owned this site and would seek an active role in developing any future proposals but there were none to date. Finally, Councillor House reiterated the need for a proper debate regarding the possible relocation and the Joint Scrutiny Panel had been set up for this purpose.

341. MEMBERS' QUESTIONS

(i) Councillor Grajewski asked the following question of Councillor House:

“In view of the abandonment of the SDA plan for 6000 new homes at North / North East Hedge End, what has been the total expenditure and breakdown of funding sources relating to the preparatory work carried out in connection with the SDA proposal and how many homes will be scheduled to be built in the Borough to replace them and where will they be located?” 211

Councillor House advised that work on the SDA, over and above the usual core planning work of the Council, was funded by government grant to the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire, PUSH, rather than to the Council. He did not have full details of this government expenditure, but Cllr Grajewski could obtain this information from PUSH. Councillor House then stated that he had answered the question on future housing in his earlier Cabinet statement.

In response to a supplementary question regarding Fareham Borough Council continuing with the Plan and the residents of Botley seeking reassurance that this would not be the case in this Borough, Councillor House advised that the SDA had proved unfeasible in the location suggested and it was also conditional on government infrastructure funding that would now not be available. However, it was sensible for discussions to take place with the Parish Council regarding future housing need in Botley.

(ii) Councillor Norgate asked the following question of Councillor House:

“Can the Leader of the Council update us with the latest situation regarding the Wildern Mill legal case that EBC has taken to the new Supreme Court? How much money and officer time has already been spent in preparing the case and what is the estimated total likely to be?”

Councillor House replied that the Supreme Court had refused the Council leave to appeal the decision. This did not necessarily mean the Council’s case was without merit as the Court would not look at a case where they had recently looked at a similar issue, for example contract terms. Total costs associated with the application were just under £11,000.

(iii) Councillor Norgate asked the following question of Councillor House:

“Can the Leader of the Council confirm the timeline for completion of the Rosebowl project, specifically the hotel? Will the hotel be built in time for the 2013 Ashes tour?”

Councillor House advised that many councillors had had the benefit of a tour of the new facilities at the Rose Bowl earlier in the month and it was hoped had found them a great enhancement on the borough’s world class venue. Unfortunately Councillor Norgate was not at that tour. When the Council has a revised full package to take forward the Rose Bowl project, this will be brought back before Council, hopefully over the winter. If that is so, it was expected that the hotel would be open for the Ashes tour.

In response to a supplementary question regarding any changes being made to the contract being voted by the Council, Councillor House replied that the matter would come back before the Council as some areas would have been updated since the contract was first put together a year ago. 212

(iv) Councillor Norgate asked the following question of Councillor House:

“The Chief Financial Officer has used his powers to initiate a full internal audit investigation into the £800,000 overspend on phase 3 of The Point. Scrutiny panel meetings that would have looked at this overspend have been cancelled. Will the Leader confirm the reasons for the continued delay and assure Councillors he will help facilitate the completion of this investigation so a report can be prepared by December 2010 to allow the scrutiny panel to look at this matter?”

Councillor House advised that there was not an overspend as described on Phase 3 of The Point. It was fair to say that this proved to be a complex project, and Cabinet has been kept up to date throughout. Cllr Broadhurst indicated at Council back in January that a likely overspend of around £200,000 had been identified as part of the usual corporate financial monitoring process. There was still some work to take place on the project and a report was being prepared, as promised, for the Resources Scrutiny Panel and Community Investment Programme Scrutiny Panel to consider in November. It made sense for this to be a joint meeting on the grounds of efficiency.

Phase 3 of The Point had been a tremendous success. The additional rehearsal and performance spaces had attracted national and international artists to work in Eastleigh, working with local people young and old in the process. Councillor House had the pleasure of taking the Echo Editor around Phase 3 earlier this month, and showing him the “wow” factor. He was duly “wowed”, just as visiting national journalists have been. Councillor House encouraged everyone to be proud of a tremendous achievement; it showed what local government still could do, and would continue on doing here in Eastleigh even after the financial mess left by the last Labour Government.

(v) Councillor Norgate asked the following question of Councillor Winstanley:

“With the Homechoice register now showing over 5,480 families waiting for accommodation, can the Cabinet Member advise what plans she has, or is planning to, put in place to significantly reduce this number?”

This Question was deferred at Councillor Norgate’s request at Councillor Winstanley was unable to attend the meeting.

(vi) Councillor Norgate asked the following question of Councillor House:

“Now that the Coalition government’s Communities Secretary has “declared war” on “Town Hall Pravda style newspapers” can the Cabinet Member confirm Eastleigh Borough Council will be following government advice and reduce the number of issues of the Borough News? When will this reduction become effective?” 213

Councillor House advised that there was a consultation from the Department of Communities and Local Government on the issue at the moment and the Council would be replying suggesting that in the spirit of localism it was not for central government to tell local government how it should go about working with local communities. Central government wants to protect local newspapers. The irony here was that the design, printing and distribution contract for Borough News was with the Echo group, so a reduction in Borough News would reduce their business.

(vii) Councillor Norgate asked the following question of Councillor Broadhurst:

“With concern expressed by allotment holders over the transfer of allotments to Parish Councils and Eastleigh LAC, can the Cabinet Member confirm that there has been no significant increase in the cost of plots prior to their passing over to the next tier of local government?”

Councillor Broadhurst replied that he could confirm that there had been no significant increase in the cost of plots prior to their passing over to the next tier of local government. Eastleigh rents had been increased to £8 per sq rod but the rents for Allbrook and Chandlers Ford had remained at £5 per sq rod as it was for the new Parish Councils to determine any increases.

(viii) Councillor Norgate asked the following question of Councillor Winstanley:

“Can the Cabinet Member confirm when the last review of bailiffs operating in Eastleigh took place and when the next review is due?”

This Question was deferred at Councillor Norgate’s request at Councillor Winstanley was unable to attend the meeting.

342. RESOLVED ITEMS - FOR NOTING AND QUESTIONS ONLY

RESOLVED -

That the Minutes of the following meetings be received:

Cabinet - Thursday 9 September and Thursday 14 October 2010;

Audit and Risk Management - Tuesday 21 September 2010;

Resources Scrutiny Panel - Thursday 15 July and Thursday 23 September 2010;

Environment Scrutiny Panel - Thursday 29 July and Thursday 16 September 2010; 214

Community Wellbeing Scrutiny Panel - Wednesday 8 September 2010;

Chandler's Ford and Local Area Committee - Wednesday 15 September 2010;

Hedge End, West End and Botley Local Area Committee - Monday 13 September 2010;

Eastleigh Local Area Committee - Tuesday 27 July and Tuesday 14 September 2010;

Bursledon, Hamble-le-Rice and Hound Local Area Committee - Thursday 2 September 2010;

Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath Local Area Committee - Wednesday 1 September and Wednesday 13 October 2010.

(NOTE: Councillor Scott declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the Minutes of Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath Local Area Committee on 13 October 2010. He remained in the room but did not speak or vote.)

The meeting finished at 8:30 pm M4329