Meeting documents

The Head of Finance introduced his report which follows the last meeting of the Group held on 19 March when it was agreed that a site specific review of the access licences be undertaken. A replacement page to the report was circulated at the meeting which showed the updated figures on the outcomes of the reviews of the 253 properties which had been detailed in Appendix 2 of the report.

The Head of Finance explained that the objectives of the review were to confirm ownership of the land, confirm whether the Council's permission was required to gain access over it, provide fair and equitable solutions to both residents' and businesses' access needs and to propose fair and equitable charges where licences are required. He went on to explain that officers undertook a review and engaged with Ward Members who were able to provide views on local issues and comments made by local people. He added that there also needed to be a degree of objectivity and therefore criteria had been set in this regard. Each of the criteria was weighted and scored so that the higher the overall score, the higher the priority that a form of formal access arrangement was required. The lower the score, the lesser the necessity for formal arrangements.

The Head of Finance explained the details around the outcomes of the reviews. It was noted that the Legal department had confirmed that all the land in question was within the ownership of the Council and that permission was required to access it. It was further noted that land lease arrangements were excluded from the reviews, a requested by the Policy Development Group at its last meeting.

The Group was advised that the outcome of the reviews showed that for 77 Council dwellings, access rights could be clarified by amending the tenancy agreements and a review of tenancy agreements was already planned for 2014. The access rights to 51 former Council dwellings purchased under the Right to Buy scheme were not formalised at the time of transfer and this would now be confirmed in a letter from the Council. Members were also advised that the Council would confirm in writing to 55 private residents that they may continue to gain access across its land and will offer discussion on formalising this arrangement, if required by residents. For eight privately owned residential properties, the Council believes that an access licence is required. For three commercial properties, the Council believes that an access licence is required and in the case of two properties, it was agreed that enforcement action was appropriate to restrict the access. Meetings with Members had helped to identify a further 57 properties where there was a need for further consultation before completing the review. There were two properties for which it was considered that enforcement action was necessary. In summary, it was noted that there were 196 properties where it was deemed relatively straightforward for them to be dealt with. Consideration therefore had to be given to what, if any, charge to apply in relation to those properties which had been identified as requiring a licence.

The Chairman sought clarification that those residents who had received letters would not be asked to pay.

The Head of Finance confirmed that where it had been identified that no licence was necessary, there would be no charge.

The Chairman then invited Members to ask questions.

Councillor Sheahan referred to the figures in the report not matching those which had been reported at the meeting. It became apparent that the updated figures had been included on the back of the additional paper which had been circulated at the meeting and it was these figures which Members should now be referring to.

Councillor Sheahan asked whether the occupiers who were being written to, would be under any obligation to commit to any agreement.

The Legal Services Team Manager replied that it was his understanding that there would be no requirement for them to make any commitment and that the tenancies would be amended with no obligation but if the residents wished to enter into an agreement they could do so and would be encouraged to seek their own legal advice.

Councillor Sheahan asked if there would be a charge for this agreement, and the Legal Services Team Manager responded by stating that he was not aware that there would be a charge.

Councillor Sheahan asked whether officers would object to there being no charge in view of the fact that any enforcement action as a result of non payment could outweigh the charge.

The Head of Finance advised that the original recommendation of Cabinet was to charge the market rate as there is a value attached to the property as a result of having a licence. The suggested charge of £35.00 was merely to recover any administration costs.

Councillor Sheahan moved that officers take the necessary actions to formalise access arrangements with regard to the 196 properties identified as being relatively straightforward to deal with.

The Chairman sought clarification that the recommendations identified as (1), (2) and (3) were being moved and this was confirmed.

This was seconded by Councillor Saffell and on being put to vote it was unanimously CARRIED.

Councillor Clarke then moved that there should no charge for residential properties and a £35.00 charge for commercial properties. This was seconded by Councillor Adams.

Councillor Everitt reported that it would be unjust to put any further financial pressures on local residents.

Councillor Smith reported that in the interests of fairness, a charge should be imposed if not only to prevent others from having to pick up the tab for what essentially gives the houseowner a huge financial advantage.

The Chairman reported that it could be argued that £35.00 seems a reasonable charge and offers value for money given that there is financial advantage to be gained by having an access licence.

Councillor Clarke reported that having no charge sends out a positive message and would improve the reputation of the Council.

Councillor Saffell advised that administering the licences would incur a cost to the Council and at the very least this should be recovered so as not to pass this financial burden on to others.

Councillor Smith stated that by not charging for the licences it would go against the view of the district valuer.

Councillor Sheahan referred to the risk assessment set out on page 33 of the agenda which clearly stated that the costs being incurred outweighing the income generated would be a medium risk. However, negative publicity for the Authority would be a high risk. He also stated that enforcement would be an issue should a resident refuse to pay and he therefore supported the motion put forward by Councillor Clarke. He added that he understood Councillor Saffell's argument but he could not see how this would work.

Councillor Richichi asked whether residents could claim land ownership should they decide to adopt it.

The Legal Services Team Manager advised that any claim to prescriptive rights would be halted once the letter had been sent.

The motion was put to the vote and the vote being 4 for and 5 against with one abstention, the motion was LOST.

Councillor Saffell moved that where a licence was required, a charge of £35.00 should be made across the board. This was seconded by Councillor Cotterill.

On being put to the vote, the vote being 4 for and 4 against with 2 abstentions, the Chairman used his casting vote and subsequently the motion was CARRIED.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer introduced the report on recent legislative and organisational changes which require the Constitution to be updated. The report will need the approval of Council and Members of the Policy Development Group were asked to let the Monitoring Officer know of any comments they may have.

Councillor Sheahan asked for the reasons for the request to increase the number of Cabinet meetings to 11 and asked whether this was because there had been difficulties in arranging meetings in the past.

The Chief Executive advised that the reason for the request was following concerns by officers that the period between meetings was sometimes too long and it was far better to have all the meetings scheduled in as opposed to trying to arrange them ad hoc.

Councillor Saffell referred to an error in the appendix to the report where it referred to the Highways Act 1990 as this should read Highways Act 1980.

Councillor Clarke asked when the threshold for write-offs had been set at £1,000 as it appeared that a jump to £10,000 was quite significant.

The Legal Services Manager advised that the threshold of £1,000 was in place when he started work at the Council back in the early 1990s and he understood then that it had been in place for some time.

Councillor Clarke advised that this put some perspective to it and £10,000 therefore did not seem too bad.

Consideration was given to the future work programme for the Policy Development Group.

On considering the inclusion of 'Delivering Growth and Prosperity in Coalville' it was noted that a report would be going to Cabinet in June. However it was felt that a discussion report to the next meeting would be welcomed and it mattered not if this was before or after it had been to Cabinet.