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.

Councillor R Johnson put the following question to Councillor T J Pendleton:

 

“Because of recent allegations by some members of this authority that there could be political bias in the way planning applications are decided, do you consider it would in any way be beneficial with a recorded vote on all applications brought to the Planning Committee?”

 

Councillor T J Pendleton gave the following response:

 

“Planning applications are determined on their individual merits and I am not aware of any evidence to the contrary in any recent decisions made by this Council.  If any Councillor does have evidence to the contrary then they should bring it to the attention of the Director and of course it will be properly investigated.

 

The legislation does not require any particular form of voting and it is open for the Council to specify the voting process in its procedure rules. 

 

The current procedure rules reflect the norm as follows;

 

‘Unless a recorded vote is demanded the Chairman will take the vote by a show of hands, or if there is no dissent, by the affirmation of the meeting’.

 

I see no reason why the Council should alter this procedure rule which clearly provides the option of recorded votes should a member of the committee choose to request it.”

 

Councillor R Johnson made reference to political leaflets distributed in the run up to the elections and the subsequent applications which had been permitted.  As a supplementary question, he asked Councillor T J Pendleton whether he felt this demonstrated political bias.

 

Councillor T J Pendleton responded that he did not feel that this demonstrated any bias, however he advised Councillor R Johnson to take the appropriate recourse if he felt he had evidence to suggest this.

 

Councillor R Johnson commented that the evidence was there and a recorded vote should be required for all planning applications.

 

Councillor J Clarke put the following question to Councillor T J Pendleton:

 

“What is the legal position for the Council with regard to providing sites for the travelling community?”

 

Councillor T J Pendleton gave the following response:

 

“Section 225 of the Housing Act 2004 requires that every local housing authority must, when undertaking a review of housing needs in their district under section 8 of the Housing Act 1985, carry out an assessment of the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers residing in or resorting to their district.

 

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) requires local planning authorities to assess and meet the housing need of its communities, including gypsies, travellers and travelling showpeople.

 

This is developed further in ‘Planning Policy for Traveller Sites’ issued by DCLG in August 2015.This states that “Local planning authorities should set pitch targets for gypsies and travellers [as defined in Annex 1] and plot targets for travelling showpeople [as defined in Annex 1] which address their permanent and transit site accommodation needs of travellers in their area , working collaboratively with neighbouring local planning authorities”.

 

It goes on to require that as part of their Local Plans local planning authorities should “identify and update annually, a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide 5 years’ worth of sites against their locally set targets”.

 

Councillor J Clarke declined to ask a supplementary question.

 

Councillor T Eynon put the following question to Councillor N J Rushton:

 

“At the end of October Individual Electoral Registration stood at 82% of households in the District.

 

How can this Council achieve its target of 95% registration by the deadline for the Boundary Commission review, where are the challenges and how can Councillors help?”

 

Councillor N J Rushton gave the following response:

 

“This year, as with previous years, the Council will comply with its statutory duties and best practice in the production of the electoral register. As such, we have sent a Household Enquiry Form, and where necessary a first and second reminder form, to every property in the District in order to ensure that we are aware of every resident that is eligible to be included on the register. Furthermore, we are currently in the process of undertaking a doorstep visit to each non-responding property. We are required to visit each household once, however, we have instructed our canvassers to make at least two visits in order to maximise response levels. We have also undertaken additional telephone canvassing where possible in order to ascertain who is eligible to be registered. As a consequence of this work, we have continually reached our target response rate in previous years and our current response rate this year exceeds that of other authorities in Leicestershire.

 

The challenges that we face in our District are in line with those seen nationally. Fundamentally, home movement is the most important factor that detracts from the completeness of the register. As such, the challenge that we face is in ensuring that the demographics that are associated with home movement such as young people, private renters, recent home movers and European Union citizens register themselves accordingly. It is for this reason that, in addition to our statutory duties, we also liaise directly with several external partners to maximise registration amongst these hard to reach groups. For example, we have forged links with residential care homes and site offices at new housing developments.

 

We would encourage every Member to take an interest in the electoral register for the area that they represent and to promote registration amongst their constituents. We are already working with some Members in providing them with resources such as registration forms and posters and would be keen to work with other Members in promoting registration in their Wards.

 

At the time of printing these papers the response rate was at 89%, and work will continue as we endeavour to achieve the target of 95% by 1 December 2015”.

 

Councillor T Eynon thanked Councillor N J Rushton and the officers for a very comprehensive reply and she commented that she was extremely pleased to see the improvement in the return rate which was testament to the work of the Democratic Services team.  She stated that home movement was an important factor and advised that while she was out delivering posters and engaging with letting agents, one offered to write a clause into his contract with lessees to encourage registration.  As a supplementary question, she asked if there was something the Council could be doing to encourage such behaviour.

 

Councillor N J Rushton responded that he was unable to answer at present but would provide a written response to Councillor T Eynon.

 

Councillor R Adams put the following question to Councillor A V Smith:

 

“Collections currently stored at the Snibston Discovery Centre hold great heritage value and help tell the story of the area's history. Some artefacts are already earmarked for return to the area's from where they originate.

 

It's essential that we now secure those collections and artefacts that have a significant heritage value to North West Leicestershire: The Palitoy collection, the Whitwick Hearse, the Belmont Butty boat and the Fish and Chip collection to mention a few from the extensive list of collections.

 

Given the significant heritage importance to local people, what support will the council provide to ensure the local collections are retained within the district for the benefit of future generations of residents and visitors?”

 

Councillor A V Smith gave the following response:

 

“Thank you for your timely question, with the legal challenges concluded, now is the time to look to the future of the collection and the site.

 

In reply to your question the County Council were asked to outline their approach to the relocation of the collections and their response is as follows:

 

“The items mentioned in the question are all accessioned as part of the Leicestershire County Council Museum Service Collections. This means that as an accredited museum service, the County Council has responsibility for the long term care and preservation of those collections, which it holds in trust for the people of Leicestershire.

 

Following the closure of Snibston Museum, the County Council has been clear that it intends to uphold its responsibilities in relation to the collections formerly displayed there. The County Council has said that it will continue to respond positively to approaches from accredited museums and other appropriate organisations who wish to loan items from the Leicestershire collections, in order to make them accessible to the public through display or exhibition.”

 

From this council’s point of view we will reaffirm our interest in supporting the County’s approach to Snibston including its collection and wherever possible we will encourage local organisations and accredited museums to engage with the County regarding items of local interest. I will be writing to the County Council to reaffirm our position on this matter and I hope I have cross party support to do so”.

 

Councillor R Adams commented that it was encouraging to hear that there was a commitment to preserving artefacts, however it would be better to ensure that they remained in the area.  As a supplementary question, he asked if the Leader would commit funding in the budget to make sure that this happened.

 

Councillor A V Smith responded that at the present time she was not in a position to make any commitments, as Leicestershire County Council’s plans were currently unknown.

 

Councillor J Legrys put the following question to Councillor T J Pendleton:

 

“As Shadow Planning Lead, I have regular briefings with the Director of Services. I understand that the Portfolio Holder is considering a review of this Council’s Planning Committee process.

 

Will the Portfolio Holder consider a short all-Member ‘Task and Finish’ Group with the remit of examining exemplars of best practice in other Planning Authorities and the aim of producing for Members, the public and objectors an accessible, open and transparent explanation of the planning process?”

 

Councillor T J Pendleton gave the following response:

 

“I can assure the Council that I take my responsibilities as Cabinet Member for planning and regeneration extremely seriously, and work tirelessly with officers and others to improve the services that I am responsible for delivering.

 

The Planning department, according to its measurable indicators such as determining applications on time, continues to get better, and I am pleased to say it continues to meet all of its targets. It is right however, that I and officers now focus on improving how we deliver this high performing service to make it more transparent, predictable and accessible.

 

As well as meeting all of our targets for determining planning applications on time, I am proud to say that customer satisfaction is also consistently high at 90%. This is especially good when you take into account that some people have their applications turned down. All of this has been achieved by hard work and dedication, and also of course focus.

 

I am not proposing a review of the committee process but like all aspects of the Council’s services I am always looking for ways in which we can improve and in doing so will of course take on board good practice from elsewhere, which may involve visits to examine how others operate. However I see no reason why we would establish a formal task and finish group when that examination can be achieved through more informal routes.

 

I re-iterate however that going forward, openness, predictability of outcome, and ease of access by the public are non-negotiable requirements for this Council’s Planning Committee”.

 

Councillor J Legrys thanked Councillor T J Pendleton for his comprehensive and frank reply.  As a supplementary question, he asked whether it was worthwhile having elected members on the Planning Committee at all and whether it was worthwhile consulting anybody outside of the ruling political group.

 

Councillor T J Pendleton responded that he always appreciated taking into account all views in the spirit of openness and he felt that having a Planning Committee which reflected al views was imperative.  He added that he would continue to look at sound exemplars elsewhere.

 

Councillor D Everitt put the following question to Councillor A V Smith

 

“From time to time, sadly people die without leaving any funds whatsoever, and no relatives or friends are able to help.  It is not generally known that when this happens it falls on the council to arrange funeral and burial arrangements.  Will the Portfolio Holder please state how many times the council has carried out these duties in the last five years giving figures for each year.  Can she also tell us something about how this important service is provided”.

 

Councillor A V Smith gave the following response:

 

“The Council has a duty under the Public Health Act 1984 to make arrangements for the burial or cremation of any deceased residents on the following grounds;

 

-        if the deceased have no remaining family

-        If their family cannot be traced (the Council is required to make reasonable enquiries to trace relatives)

-        if their family do not have the financial means to provide for a funeral

Where no relatives are found or if they do not have any financial means to pay for the funeral the Council will arrange and fund what is termed a Welfare funeral. The average cost of a Welfare Funeral in North West Leicestershire is £900. Wherever possible the Council seeks to recover these costs from the deceased estate.

 

The duty to manage Welfare Funerals falls to the Council’s Environmental Health Officers in conjunction with Burials Officers both within the Street Action Team.

 

The number of welfare funerals provided over the last 5 years are as follows:

 

2011/12 - 1

2012/13 - 1

2013/14 - 2

2014/15 - 2

2015/16 - 1”