Agenda item

To receive members’ questions under procedure rule no.11.  The procedure rule provides that any member may ask the Chairman of a board or group 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.

Four questions were asked which were circulated in the additional papers and are set out below with the responses.  Each Member who asked a question was invited by the Chair of the Council to ask one supplementary question which is also set out with the response.

Question from Councillor Legrys

‘Can the Portfolio Holder please update me as Ward Member on proposals to modify/upgrade Stenson Square Coalville please?’

Response from Councillor R Blunt

‘Specialist “Place Making” Consultants have been appointed to undertake the next phase of the Stenson Square project. As part of this commission the consultants will build upon the previous concept proposals to draw up a planning application submission for the area in front of Stenson House. The consultants will shortly be arranging an engagement meeting with local stakeholders (including councillors) which will offer an opportunity for all those interested in this project to help inform and refine the proposals.’

Supplementary question and response

Councillor J Legrys asked for a timeline for progressing the work.  Councillor R Blunt explained that officers were working towards obtaining a certificate of lawful use and then work could begin to demolish the old council offices, therefore, progress was imminent.  It was reported that meetings on the matter were being scheduled and Councillor J Legrys would be involved at every stage.

Question from Councillor P Moult

‘I would like to know with regard to timescales when, if at all The Oak public house at Whitwick is to be developed, given that it was purchased in 2021 and the costs of security, clearance and designs are increasing daily?’

Response from Councillor A Woodman

‘The site is within the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) property portfolio and was purchased some time ago as a prospective development site. The Housing Service’s new build capacity has recently been increased through the use of external contractors to start to address outstanding sites. The development opportunities for each site are currently being assessed.

This particular site has an expired outline planning permission for a housing development and requires a detailed application to be developed in line with current social housing standards if it is to be taken forward for development. A feasibility study is currently being commissioned. This means that it is likely to be some months before a revised planning application could come forward. The earliest anticipated date for completion is therefore likely to be some years away.

In the meantime, the site is being managed, along with the other small number of sites the HRA controls, awaiting development.  The ongoing regular costs amount to c£1000 per annum, plus ad hoc litter and or vegetation clearance, the cost of which varies by visit. These costs are being met from the HRA and are not funded by the General Fund.  This is in addition to the combined purchase and costs for design work and site clearances, fencing etc to date of c£480,000.’

Supplementary question and response

Councillor P Moult referred to the issues on site including overhanging trees to neighbours, vermin on the site and security required.  He asked for an explanation on the impact of the costs on the financial stability and value for money position of the authority.  Councillor A Woodman explained the costs if the site was part of the Housing Revenue Account rather than the General Fund and the two should not be conflicted.  It was noted that the focus had been on improving the maintenance service, but things were now moving forward.  The issues raised were noted and Councillor A Woodman would raise it with officers outside of the meeting.

Question from Councillor C Beck

‘What can councils in Leicestershire do, to make sure that the list of independent persons is representative of the population?’

Response from Councillor K Merrie

‘There has been a fair and open recruitment process for the Independent Persons in accordance with the Equality Act 2010 and HR policies. From this, two new Independent Persons have been chosen due to their impressive applications and successful interviews. We have a pool arrangement with the other Leicestershire Councils. The benefit of this is it provides for a larger number of IPs which can be drawn from and does not limit this to having only one or two in the position. We are hopeful that this approach means the IPs will be better representative of the population, given the pool allows for a wider cross section of people to choose from and no limit on numbers – if someone meets the criteria and performs well in the interview, they can be offered the role.

The job advert for this recruitment was tailored to the role but in a way that could encourage a range of applicants, and for future recruitment exercises it can be ensured that a similar approach is taken.

The essential criteria were experience of local government or other aspects of public service and of the political process, and that the IPs either live or work in Leicestershire. Other essential criteria related to communication skills, the ability to assimilate information, having an understanding of legal requirements, understanding confidentiality requirements, being assertive, being open minded and using IT. There has to be a balance between ensuring the right people apply for the job, but not setting the requirements too stringently that no one can meet them. It is also important to note that it is an essential requirement that the IP either lives or works in Leicestershire, thus giving them a connection to the area within which they will be carrying out the role.

The role description also specifically requires the IP to be aware of the views of the local community on ethical standards, and to ensure they reflect views when carrying out the role.

The role was advertised by all the Leicestershire Councils, in order to ensure the advert had as wide a reach as possible.’

Supplementary question and response

Councillor C Beck asked how highly qualified and skilled women could be encouraged to take part in the recruitment process.  Councillor K Merrie offered to meet with Councillor C Beck to discuss the matter further.

Question from Councillor J Geary

‘Once again, our travelling friends paid us a visit a couple of weeks ago, this time setting up home on the London Road Park, so I again ask the question as to what progress is being made in finding the travelling community a suitable site within our district.

I last asked this question at the Council Meeting of the 18 June last. You replied by saying “I can confirm that Officers are currently investigating options for addressing the issue of transit accommodation in respect of both permanent and temporary sites as the Local Plan Review progress. The intention is for Officers to bring forward a report to members of the Local Plan Committee before the end of the year”.

You went on the say “I have asked Officers to keep Cllr Geary updated on progress and to make him aware when the issue is to be reported to the Local Plan Committee”, to date no such information has been forthcoming.’

Response from Councillor N Rushton

‘Unfortunately, it has not been possible to make the progress we had hoped on this issue due to other important work in respect of the emerging Local Plan, including consulting upon additional housing and employment site allocations and addressing responses to the proposed policies consulted upon last year.

We have recently received some additional funding from the Government to support the preparation of Local Plans and we are looking to bring in some additional capacity to help address the gypsy and traveller’s issue. Officers are aware that this is an important issue to be addressed in the preparation of the Local Plan and they will take a report to Local Plan Committee as soon as they are able.’

Supplementary question and response

Councillor J Geary asked that the matter be sent to a Scrutiny Committee so that it could be fully scrutinized, especially as there had recently been parcels of land removed from the Local Plan proposals which could be used for the much-needed transit sites for gypsy and travellers.  Councillor N Rushton acknowledged the importance of the issue and as the new Portfolio Holder, invited Councillor J Geary to discuss the matter with him further outside of the meeting.