Meeting documents

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meetings held on 9 January and 11 February 2013.

The Chairman introduced this item by moving a motion which stated that "a recommendation be made to Cabinet that all access licences will be granted free of charge for the length of the tenancy of existing residents". This was seconded by Councillor Richichi. The Chairman then invited Councillor De Lacy to take the floor and speak on behalf of the local residents.

Councillor De Lacy thanked the Chairman and addressed the meeting. He referred to a drawing which depicted the access route which ran to the rear of Leicester Road and Penistone Street, Ibstock. He explained that the access route had been used by residents for a number of years without charge and that the letter sent by this Authority suggesting that a licence was required had come as a shock, especially when that licence was to cost £20 for pedestrian access and £90 for vehicle access. Councillor De Lacy referred to the fact that not all residents had received a letter yet all residents made use of the access route which was therefore unfair. Furthermore, there was nothing to prevent any driver from utilising this access road yet despite this, only the residents were being asked to pay.

Councillor De Lacy then made reference to an occurrence on Friday last whereby the main road had been closed by Seven Trent which had caused chaos on this access road, although it was acknowledged that this was not the official diversion route. He further stated that it was locally accepted that the road in question was an access route, it had been for the past 50 years and no doubt would be for the next 50 years.

Councillor De Lacy referred Members to the reference in the report to the findings of the Council's Asset Management Group whereby it had identified that a number of sites had some form of development potential and that they therefore should be protected from any potential land sterilisation issues, including prescriptive rights. Councillor De Lacy stated that this confirmed that the Asset Management Group had recognised that not all sites required a licence so the intention of the motion to provide free licences appeared flawed.

He further reported that the consequence of this action would be to introduce more parking on the public highway which would not be in the public interest and, furthermore, residents had been maintaining this access route for a number of years, not the Council, which meant that they had protected rights of access and therefore did not require a licence, adding further weight to the argument that licences, whether free of charge or not were not always necessary.

Councillor De Lacy added that he was going to suggest that, where licences are needed, these should be free of charge but the motion put forward had already proposed this.

He then turned to the issue of the letters which had been sent out to the affected residents which he considered was deliberately designed to encourage residents to forego their prescriptive rights of access. He added that many had signed the letter not realising that they had unwittingly given these rights up and asked that the Authority consider this issue and put measures in place to rectify it.

Finally, Councillor De Lacy referred to the breakdown of the financial implications as set out in the report. He asked whether the reference to the rent of council land for which the current income was valued at £7,526 was for leisure purposes and therefore by introducing free licences would we therefore not lose income? Councillor De Lacy sought clarification on how the motion would address this. He added that the categories relating to pedestrian access were a nonsense as many residents needed to use the access for gaining entry to their property or facilities, such as wheeled bins and garages. In summary, Councillor De Lacy requested that the Council reviews where a licence is actually needed rather than just assuming no charge.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

Councillor Clarke referred to the administrative costs of £8K referred to in the report and stated that due to this amount being offset by the income of £7.5k, there would be no loss to the Council.

Councillor Neilson acknowledged that the motion proposed no charges for the licences but he argued that the issue was to establish whether licences were actually needed and, if so, where. He added that there was nothing in the report to show the original analysis of how properties were identified. He also asked whether it was prudent to see income lost from the lease of council land and sought clarification on how the motion would address this.

Councillor Everitt referred to a reference in the report which suggested that there was very little response to the letter which had been sent to elected Members setting out the reasons for the review, which alluded to the fact that only Councillor Legrys had responded. He stated that he too raised concerns and asked a question on this matter but he had been given short shrift and was disappointed that the report makes no reference to his request for information. Furthermore, he considered that there was far too much inconsistency with this policy, it was riddled with issues and was an idea best forgotten about adding that the Council should be there to support people not to make life more difficult.

The Chairman advised Councillor Everitt that a report would be submitted to the next meeting of Cabinet comprising his views.

Councillor Clayfield advised that those areas which required a licence need to be identified and a far more in-depth investigation is required into what land the Council owns and that this should be done properly and transparently.

Councillor Clarke reported that he was not clear that licences were actually required and made reference specifically to Sharpley Avenue and access to the recreation ground asking whether it was right that everyone acessing this land required a licence.

The Property Asset Manager clarified this point by stating that a licence would not be applicable if accessing the land by the normal route but it would apply to those who access the recreation ground directly from their own property e.g via a rear gate.

Councillor Clarke came back on this point stating that it was not clear and asked whether judgement on whether a licence was needed was based solely on whether the resident had a gate and asked what would be the position if the gate was no longer in use? He considered that this reasoning was not clear or robust enough.

The Chairman advised Councillor Clarke that a report would be submitted to the next meeting of Cabinet comprising his views.

Councillor Neilson asked the Chairman to clarify the need for the meeting if he was not going to allow the opportunity for questions to be answered tonight given that officers had given up their time to attend, making specific reference to the attendance of the Chief Executive and the Property Asset Manager.

The Chairman asked the Property Asset Manager to respond to the points raised.

The Property Asset Manager advised Members that the initial review was, in hindsight, fairly narrow. He gave the example of a car park as a typical priority site whereby some people have licences, others do not and some pay to park on it. Another example given was garage sites where access is over council owned land where licences are already in place being paid for by others. He also stated that this issue had held up the sale of some properties as there is no access shown on the deeds.

The Chief Executive referred to the report in which it set out suggested points for discussion by the Group with the hope of reaching a consensus view from both sides and addressing the concerns of those present.

Councillor Saffell asked how we had reached a situation where some people have licences and others do not leaving the Council with a very unfair situation which this proposal had sought to address.

A member of the public asked how, as a professional organisation, the Council could have got it so wrong.

The Chief Executive sought the permission of the Chairman to respond to this comment. Firstly she apologised sincerely for the wording in the letter which had been sent to all affected residents and which had clearly caused alarm. She acknowledged that the letter was not intended to cause concern and that it should have been better worded. She added that both herself and the Leader of the Council accepted responsibility for this and acknowledged that it had been seen by officers and members from both sides and yet no-one had picked up how the wording of the letter might have been perceived. She again apologised and advised that lessons had been learnt.

The Chief Executive went on to state that there was no easy one size fits all solution to this and that a tight procedure would need to be followed comprising local knowledge before continuing. What is required is for the Policy Development Group to suggest a direction of travel and give a steer to Cabinet on how to proceed; adding that the current process had been suspended and no further action would be taken until this matter had been resolved.

Councillor Richichi stated that there should be no charge for a licence as long as all residents signed an agreement not to claim prescriptive rights.

The Chief Executive suggested that the Policy Development Group may wish to take a site by site approach and make a strong decision for the local people. This may take longer but the process needs to be right as the Council has a duty to protect the land that belongs to the people of North West Leicestershire.

Councillor Clarke reported that it made complete sense to do a site by site review of all the sites. He referred to Stretton Drive as being a specific area which he did not believe was council owned as he believed that this was in the ownership of East Midlands Housing.

Councillor Clarke therefore moved that that a review of all the sites be undertaken before referring the decision back to Cabinet for a decision. This was seconded by Councillor Clayfield.

Councillor Coxon welcomed Councillor De Lacy's presentation and hoped that this issue could now been progressed.

Councillor Everitt expressed his pleasure to see democracy at work and stated that this was an example of good scrutiny.

Councillor Gillard supported the proposal on taking forward this issue and withdrew his original motion with the support of the seconder.

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