MEETING OF THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

TUESDAY, 22 JANUARY 2008 10.00 AM

PANEL MEMBERS PRESENT

Councillor Pam Bosworth Councillor Kenneth Joynson Councillor Stuart Farrar (Chairman) Councillor Robert Hearmon Councillor Mrs Rosemary Kaberry- Councillor Bryan Helyar Brown Councillor David Higgs Councillor Mrs Judy Smith (Vice- Chairman) Councillor Jeffrey Thompson Councillor Andrea Webster

OFFICERS OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT

Principal Democracy Officer Councillor Sam Jalili Scrutiny Support Officer Administrative Assistant Don Brooks ( College) Malcolm Saville (Grantham College) Two members of the press

48. COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

There were no comments from members of the public.

49. MEMBERSHIP

There were no substitute members in attendance.

50. APOLOGIES

An apology was received from Councillor Williams.

51. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Farrar declared a personal interest in relation to the item regarding Grantham College. A Partner at his employer was a governor of the college.

Councillor Hearmon declared a personal interest with regard to the Grantham College item as he was a governor of Gonerby Infants School.

52. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 20 NOVEMBER 2007 AND THE JOINT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE/ENGAGEMENT PDG MEETING HELD ON 2 NOVEMBER 2007

The minutes of the meeting of 20 th November 2007 and the Joint Scrutiny Committee/Engagement PDG meeting of 2 nd November 2007 were approved as correct records of the meetings.

53. GRANTHAM COLLEGE - FUTURE PLANS

The Principal of Grantham College, Malcolm Saville, briefed the Committee regarding the college.

• The College had its origins in engineering, but had since diversified and offered courses in 13 of the 14 areas recognised by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). • The College had Halls of Residence, which was rare for colleges. The college had numerous international students (40 for the academic year 2007/08) and also sports students who were housed in these Halls. The college was particularly successful with table tennis and water polo. • The engineering facility was a centre of vocational excellence and a new hydraulic workshop was under construction. Plumbing training had been re-established. An overflow construction site was sited at Alma Park. • Grantham College provided the majority of 6 th form education within the town. The 16-19 age group was financially more important to the college than the 19+ age group. College turnover was consistently growing, up to £10.7m for 2006/07 from £7m in 2000/01. This was relatively small – the largest colleges had turnover of £50-60m and there was a continuing trend for larger merged colleges. • Part-time enrolments had reduced substantially, whilst full-time enrolments continued to grow. This increase had been partly down to increased interest in further education, partly the new buildings and partly college successes. The College had

2 received a number of recent awards. • Of Further Education colleges in the region, Grantham had the highest total points and points score per entry for students starting level 3 courses. • The “Yes” Centre, based in the George Centre offered a number of learning options. 1. Businesses were offered “Train to Gain” where training would be delivered to employers. 2. Community learning, which provided basic sills. 3. Work based learning, which was mainly apprenticeships. Young Apprenticeships were offered from the age of 14. • Grantham College was in partnership with , Bedfordshire University and Lincoln University to provide Higher Education Courses. There were 40 full-time and 156 part-time students on these courses for the 2007-08 academic year. The College was trying to expand this provision. • Courses in hairdressing and beauty therapy were offered at College. This had originally been a partnership with , but was now operated just by Grantham College.

Members were then briefed regarding proposals for the future of the College:

• There was limited scope for expansion on the present site. It was crowded and with dated buildings, many of which were energy inefficient. There was limited potential for shared services, such as using SKDC leisure facilities. A downside of redeveloping the current site would be the disruption it would cause over a period of two to three years. • There was no provision for student parking at the present site. There had been numerous complaints from local residents regarding student on-street parking. • Several alternative sites had been looked at. The canal basin was felt would be too crowded and unlikely to fit within the timescales for funding set by the LSC. • The Meres/Earlsfield was identified as a preferred site. Former warehouses had been identified as potential sites for a new campus to be built. The College was looking into the potential of partnerships with other schools to create an “education village”. • Moving the College to the Meres would allow for the whole college to be based on a single site, without the need for satellite sites around the town.

3 • Moving onto the former Police station site had been ruled out as being too expensive, and would have resulted in a busy road cutting through the campus.

Members raised several issues with regard to the College.

• There was some concern that if the College were to move to the Meres that it would take up potential expansion room for the SKDC leisure centre if it became inadequate for the town’s future requirements. It was felt that any proposal would need to allow for the potential expansion of the leisure facilities on the site. • It was noted that the leisure centre was under utilised during the working day when the College would require the facilities. At the leisure centre the pressure was on the swimming facilities, but this would be alleviated as the College would envisage building its own pool. The College would also replace the “pay and play” squash court that was on the present College site. • Members questioned what would happen to the Halls of Residence if the College moved to a different site. This hadn’t been fully considered at the stage the College were at with proposals. The LSC would not support the costs of new residential buildings. The existing buildings had been paid for by the college and through borrowing which was covered by student rents. It was possible that in future the College would consider asking Housing Associations to assist with the provision of accommodation. • Members questioned whether the College was holding back with capital expenditure whilst considering the option of moving. This was not the case, as with the new hydraulics facility, and the College was continuing to apply for grants where available. It was stressed that at present there was an opportunity to access a national fund for capital programmes and that it was important that Grantham did not miss out. • It was mentioned that the College’s present site was potentially a valuable site for development. It was confirmed that valuers had been appointed to value the site. • Members expressed concern at the falling levels of 19+ education. The College put much of this down to lack of willingness for business to pay for training, especially when students attained higher skill levels and were more useful to the firm in employment. It was also noted that there were not enough potential students to make the teaching of professional qualifications viable within Grantham.

4 • Members questioned whether potential new sixth forms within the area would harm the College. It was felt that at present it probably was not a viable option for more sixth forms within the town.

Members thanked the College for their presentation and expressed a desire to be kept informed with ongoing developments.

54. UPDATES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING

It was noted that the County Council had issued a survey for Dial-A- Ride users. Reponses were due by the 4 th February.

55. REPORTS FROM WORKING GROUPS

Hospitals Working Group:

• Councillor Hearmon declared a personal interest as he was a member of the Grantham Hospital Defence Committee. • The Hospitals Working Group would arrange to meet to discuss how to proceed with future engagement with the NHS in the district. • Members were dissatisfied with what appeared to be ignorance of the responses made to the Shaping Health in consultation by Lincolnshire Teaching Primary Care Trust. The Committee was of the opinion that Members should continue to press the points made in response to the consultation.

Transport Working Group:

• The Transport Working Group were to arrange to meet before the next meeting of the Scrutiny Committee.

56. CUSTOMER SERVICES CENTRE UPDATE

The Committee heard that the situation appeared to be improving now that most of the new bus passes had been issued. Members felt that there was a need for further reports regarding the performance levels in relation to missed calls.

It was noted that when the system had been tested anonymously, the service provided by the Customer Service Centre had been very good.

5 57. COMMUNITY POLICING TASK GROUP

Councillors Joynson and Wootten had been attending meetings of South Holland’s Community Policing Task Group.

• There had been no decision by the Government on the future of Community Policing. • Members generally felt that Community Policing was starting to work well and that the situation would be chaotic if PCSO’s were taken away. • Members felt that PCSO’s needed to have more powers made available to them.

58. POST OFFICE CLOSURES

Members discussed the decisions made by the Post Office with regard to the closure of Post Offices.

• It was noted by members that Ryhall Road Post Office in Stamford had been saved, although the other Post Offices within the district marked for closure were now being closed. • The Post Office on the High Street, Ropsley was temporarily closed. It was noted that this was run by the same Postmaster who ran the now closed Brook Street Post Office in Grantham. It had previously been expressed that it was felt likely this would happen if Brook Street was closed. • A letter had been sent to the Post Office to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) to request information regarding the business case for the proposed closures. A response had been received but no new information was provided due to exemptions within the FOI. • Members were unhappy that financial details could not be provided as having these would be necessary to look at what options could be taken to make the Post Offices viable businesses. Members reiterated that it was not just financial factors that should be considered, but also the fact that the Post Office was a facility for the local communities.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Cabinet be asked to approach the Local Government Association to express their unhappiness with the Post Office’s response to the consultation.

6 59. PLANNING ISSUES

Members raised some issues relating to planning.

• The Committee were concerned that there may be outstanding work relating to s106 agreements. Members were keen that the Council should be actively ensuring that any promises made in s106 agreements be implemented. It was noted that as there were budget constraints the Council needed to be more pro-active in securing s106 agreements for the benefit of the district. • Members were aware that the Development Control Committee (DCC) had set up a working group relating to various planning issues. Members raised a number of concerns relating to the right of Councillors to speak during DCC meetings and it was felt that the Committee could be involved with the working group.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the DCC working group be contacted to raise the possibility of a member from each of the Scrutiny Committee and the Constitution Committee being invited to join the working group.

60. COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS - EXEMPT SESSION

The Committee was briefed by Paul Morrison regarding the use of exempt session in Council meetings. He advised that prior to the 1960’s there had been no requirement for Council Committees to meet in public, this had been introduced by the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 and strengthened by the Access to Information Act 1985. Under the 1985 Act “Matters Arising” and “Any Other Business” were not allowed. Urgent business was allowed at the discretion of the Chairman.

• Exempt session was fairly widely used in meetings of the DCC and at Licensing Committee meetings. It was used fairly often in Cabinet meetings, but generally relating to contractual issues. It had only been used once since 2004 at a full Council meeting. • Members felt there was too much use of exempt session, particularly within DCC meetings, and that this harmed the public’s perception of the level of transparency in local government.

7 61. WORK PROGRAMME

Members expressed a desire to consider the following issues at the next meeting:

• Statutory Notices • Communications process between the three tiers of local government. • Staff and Councillor communications • IT provision • The Disability Act

62. REPRESENTATIVES ON OUTSIDE BODIES

• It was noted that New College, Stamford had its bid for LSC funding considerably limited. This would restrict the building programme. • Bourne Youth Centre was flourishing and there was an average attendance of 30 young people each evening, rising to 75+ on a Friday. It was felt that this was a very worthwhile project. • It was noted that there was a good uptake of services at the Butterfield Day Centre in Bourne. • There was concern from Disability Lincs that the new concessionary travel system placed the disabled at a disadvantage as they were now unable to access taxi services. • Members noted that the Council had no representative on the County Tourism Committee. It was noted that this was due to the Council not funding membership and members requested that this be discussed at a future meeting.

63. ANY OTHER BUSINESS, WHICH THE CHAIRMAN, BY REASONS OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, DECIDES IS URGENT

There were no matters arising.

MEETING CLOSE

The meeting closed at 1:35 pm.

8