Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors N Clarke, J Geary and A C Saffell.

Under the Code of Conduct members are reminded that in declaring disclosable interests you should make clear the nature of that interest and whether it is pecuniary or non-pecuniary.

Councillors J G Coxon and S Sheahan declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 7 – Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2015/16 to 2018/19, as Members of Leicestershire County Council, due to the reference in the report in respect of recycling credits.

To receive questions from members of the public under rule no.10 of the Council Procedure Rules. The procedure rule provides that members of the public may ask any question on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties which affect the District, provided that three clear days’ notice in writing has been given to the Head of Legal and Support Services.

There were no questions received.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2014.

By affirmation of the meeting it was

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2014 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Report of the Head of Legal and Support Services

The Deputy Monitoring Officer presented the report to Members, drawing their attention to the main changes proposed as outlined at section 5 of the report.  In respect of the Openness of Government Bodies Regulations 2014 he advised that this had now come into effect and a draft protocol had been prepared which set out how the Council would expect members of the public to act when recording meetings.  He added that once this was agreed, it was envisaged that a copy would be available at public meetings.  He advised that a further consequence of the Regulations was the requirement to publish officer decisions in respect of Council decisions as well as Executive decisions.  In respect of Members’ interests, he advised that no regulations had been made in respect of non-pecuniary interests; however for the sake of transparency, the Monitoring Officer felt that it would be useful for these interests to be clarified in the Constitution.  He highlighted the changes in respect of the Appointments Committee, which had been discussed with Group Leaders.  He advised that there had been a suggestion that the Chairman of this Committee should not have a casting vote; he explained that this would not be possible as the Local Government Act could not be dis-applied.  He advised that it had also been suggested that a pool of substitutes be appointed, and that it would be appropriate for the pool of substitutes to consist of Cabinet Members and Shadow Portfolio Holders, as Members in these positions had sufficient experience and knowledge to consider the appointment of senior positions.

Councillor S Sheahan referred to the paragraph in the report regarding shared services and asked how this differed to what was done currently.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer advised that the Members for each authority made the appointments in respect of the Leicestershire Revenues and Benefits Partnership; as such there would still be Member involvement, but not in the sense of an Appointments Committee.

Councillor S Sheahan commented that the proposed procedure for appointments of deputy chief officers seemed a little loose, as it was not indicated at what point in the process a Cabinet Member was to object, or who would decide what was a well-founded objection.  He felt that it would have been more appropriate for the Appointments Panel to comment rather than Cabinet.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer advised that it had always been the case that Cabinet had the opportunity to object to an appointment, and this was usually within 48 hours of being notified. 

Councillor S Sheahan acknowledged that this was an established practice, but felt however that since the appointment of deputy chief officers was being taken out of the purview of the Appointments Committee, the facility should remain for Members of the Appointments Committee to make objections.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer advised that the points raised would be reported back and considered.

Councillor V Richichi referred to the facility to film meetings and asked if the Council would also be recording meetings.  He also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

Report of the Head of Community Services

The Head of Community Services presented the report to Members.  He advised that there had been a request from Members in 2012 to review the Community Engagement Strategy, however as the strategy had just been introduced at that time, it was felt that it would be appropriate for some time to pass before reviewing the strategy.  He suggested that the two key areas for review were the strategy itself, and considering from a Member perspective what had worked well and what hadn’t in terms of consultation. 

Councillor J G Coxon sought clarification on how long the review was likely to take given the elections in May.

The Head of Community Services proposed that the first meeting be held on 22 October.  There would be two further meetings, however the timing of these would be dependent upon the outcome of the first meeting.

Councillor S Sheahan asked if there would be any provision to engage with residents and ask them if what the Council was doing was fit for purpose for them.

The Head of Community Services advised that the Community Engagement Strategy intended to set out how the Council would undertake consultations.  He added that each service area had ongoing consultations and individual people with whom they consulted, and as such it may be difficult to obtain a reflective sample from all groups.  He suggested that a representative sample could be considered and this could be discussed at the first meeting of the group.

Councillor S Sheahan commented that it made sense to make sure that people were happy with the process if the Council was expecting them to engage.

Councillor R Adams expressed concerns that the working party might not be concluded by the elections in May, which could affect the make-up of the group.

The Head of Community Services advised that Members could decide to delay the review if they wished to do so.  He explained that the rules of political balance did not apply to task and finish groups, however he felt it would be prudent to have a representative from both parties.

Councillor N Smith suggested that the review should not be delayed.  In terms of the membership he suggested that there be 3 Conservative Members and 2 Labour Members.

The Chairman commented that he did not see that this should be a political group, however he felt it did require a mix of Members.

Councillor D Howe commented that he believed tenants in North West Leicestershire were more involved than any in the country and there were a lot of tenants who were interested.

The Head of Community Services welcomed this feedback and commented that he would be happy to pick this up as part of the report.  He added that if there were no suggestions made where consultation had not worked well, issues would be reported from an officer perspective.

The Chairman sought volunteers to sit on the group.

Councillor R Adams commented that 5 Members was only a recommendation.  He suggested there should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

Report of the Head of Finance

The Head of Finance presented the report to Members.  He stated that the report provided an opportunity to comment to Cabinet on the strategy following a request at the last meeting.  He advised that there would be a further report to Cabinet on next year’s budget proposals in November, and these proposals would be considered by Policy Development Group at its next meeting.  He highlighted the estimated shortfall set out in the Cabinet report at Appendix 1, and the ongoing savings proposed to address this.  He advised that the shortfall was not as high as it might have been, due to the year on year efficiencies which had been made.  He added that nevertheless it would be a challenge.  He advised that in preparing the MTFS, it was necessary to be mindful of the budget proposals of the Council’s partners.  He referred to the possibility of the withdrawal of recycling credits as proposed by Leicestershire County Council.  He advised that if these proposals were to go ahead, this could lead to a shortfall, and therefore a contingency amount had been set aside in the MTFS.  He outlined the assumptions that had been made in preparing the MTFS.

Councillor S Sheahan stated that he was disappointed that no Member of Cabinet was present to answer questions, and felt that it was a matter for the Committee to decide whether it wanted a Member of Cabinet present for this purpose.  He asked if there was any reason why this had not been arranged.  He asked the Head of Finance if he was confident that there would be no need for further cuts.

The Head of Finance advised that the Council operated a Planning for the Future programme, and was therefore constantly undertaking service reviews.  He commented that targets could increase or decrease.  He added that efficiencies had been made in the current year which would continue in subsequent years.  He advised that this was reflected in the budget monitoring report and there would be further modest savings coming forward as part of the report to Cabinet in November. 

Councillor V Richichi commented that the Council would be receiving an increase in new homes bonus, yet was still required to make £1.4 million in savings. 

The Head of Finance responded that this was possibly a case of central Government giving with one hand and taking away with the other.  He explained that the Council had seen very significant reductions in revenue support grants and funding had been reduced by £3 to £4 million over the last few years.  He added that the increase in the new homes bonus did not cover the shortfall in funding from central Government, and the Council had been required to make the additional savings.

In response to a question from Councillor V Richichi, the Head of Finance stated that the Council had a good track record of making efficiencies without impacting upon frontline services, however this would be a challenge in the coming years and there could be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

To consider any items to be included in the work programme. The plan of forthcoming decisions of Cabinet is attached for information.

Councillor S Sheahan suggested that the items regarding review of housing policies and developing the 2015/16 HRA Budget and HRA Capital Programme be added to the work programme.

Councillor M Specht felt that it would be useful if Councillor T Gillard could provide some information on the superfast broadband programme.  He made reference to concerns raised in Coleorton Parish and other rural areas.