Council and councillors

To confirm the record of the meeting of the Places Scrutiny Panel on 7 July 2016 (previously circulated)

The Record of the Meeting of the Places Scrutiny Panel held on 7 July 2016, copies of which had been previously circulated were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

In accordance with the Regulations, Members are invited to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have and the nature of those interests in respect of items on this Agenda and/or indicate if Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applies to them.

No Declaration of Interest were received.

To receive any petitions, deputations and questions received from Members of the Public in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 217.

The total time allowed for this item shall be 30 minutes.  Petitions, declarations and questions shall be dealt with in the order in which they are received.  Question may also be submitted at short notice by giving a written copy to the Committee Administrator 15 minutes before the start of the meeting.

The total time allowed for questions at short notice is 15 minutes out of the total time of 30 minutes.  Any petitions, deputations and questions that have been submitted with prior formal notice will take precedence over questions submitted at short notice.  Any questions that are not considered within the time limit shall receive a written response after the meeting and be the subject of a report to the next meeting.

No petitions, declarations or questions were received from members of the public.

To consider any questions with notice from Members received in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule No. 219 and No. 219A.

No questions were received from members.

To consider any Notices of Motion from Members submitted in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule No. 220.

No notices of motion were received from members.

To consider any matter referred to the Panel for a decision in relation to call in of a decision which relates to this Scrutiny Panel’s remit and items on this Agenda.

No matter was referred to the Panel for a decision in relation to call-in of a decision in accordance with Procedure Rule 206.

To receive Report No. 133/2016 from the Director for Resources

(previously circulated under separate cover)

Report No. 133/2016 from the Director for Resources was received.

The Portfolio Holder, Mr Mathias, invited members to ask questions on the report.

During discussion the following points were noted:

      i.        That the figure in the revenue budget listed as Appropriations was not actual income and was the figure for depreciation.  Income received from Section 106 monies and sale of assets would be shown in capital reserves and not the revenue budget.

    ii.        A breakdown of monies allocated to each of the schemes approved under the Capital Allocation Project Board was requested by members.  The Portfolio Holder, Mr King, advised that this was being revised at present and a list would be provided by the Finance department.

   iii.        Members requested an explanation as to the difference in the figures for investment at Oakham Enterprise Park, Report 100/2016 authorised £500,000 (shown on page 16 of the report) and the Detailed Capital Programme at Appendix 1 has an allocation of £600,000 (page 47).  The Portfolio Holder, Mr King, explained that the £500,000 was the figure approved by Cabinet and that a further £100,000 was required for a further project which had been withdrawn since the publication of the Quarter 1 report.  The £100,000 would not be included in the Quarter 2 report when published.

   iv.        Members queried a request for S106 education monies at Oakham Enterprise park, an amount of £15,000 was stated at paragraph 2.2.3 of the report but a detailed explanation of the spend was not included.  Mr King advised that this may be for a pottery facility for the Rutland Adult Learning Service (RALS) but would clarify this at a later stage.*

    v.        Oakham Castle – an apparent halt to works on the curtain walls was raised by members on behalf of the public living opposite the site.  The Portfolio Holders, Mr Hemsley and Mr King, advised that a meeting with Heritage Lottery to discuss works was to take place and following this meeting they would be in a better position to advise members accordingly.  This would be provided to members outside of the meeting.

   vi.        The overspend in waste management was due to the increase in the  price per tonne for onward disposal and a general increase in waste being produced across the county, both of these factors were out of the Council’s control. 

AGREED:

1.    That the Panel NOTED the contents of Report No. 133/2016

2.    That information due to be provided outside of the meeting were to be circulated to all members of Council.

* Following the close of the meeting Mr King advised the Chairman that the £15,000 noted at point iv. above was delegated to top up the agreed £55,000 funding allocated to provide a training kitchen which is being leased to the a private provider at Oakham Enterprise Park.

To receive Report No. 150/2016 from the Chief Executive

(Previously circulated under separate cover)

Report No. 150/2016 from the Chief Executive was received.

The Portfolio Holder, Mr Mathias, invited questions / observations from the Panel.

AGREED:

1. That the contents of the report be NOTED.

To receive Report No. 156/2016 from the Director for Places

Report No. 156/2016 from the Director for Places was received.

The Portfolio Holder, Mr Mathias, introduced the report, the purpose of which was to allow Scrutiny to make comments or suggest amendments to the policy before it was presented to Cabinet.

The following points were raised during discussion:

The Transport Task and Finish Group report contained 20 recommendations which were categorised and some of which had been implemented before this report was prepared.  The work of the task and finish group included the people review and gave further recommendations including the transport review.   It was suggested that the members of the Task and Finish group meet with the Portfolio Holder and Officers outside of Scrutiny to get an understanding of how the group’s recommendations had been incorporated into the Transport Review

A £100,000 grant had been received from the Department of Transport and this grant enabled the review to start in earnest in early 2016, a full report on the review would be presented in due course.  Members were advised that significant transport savings had already been made without affecting the service provided.

The Home to School Transport Review being considered did not include Post 16 Transport and was a small part of the broader Transport Review.

Members were disappointed at the lack of consultation responses, the Portfolio Holder, Mr Mathias, advised that this would have been less if not for member comments, the consultation went through all relevant channels but very little response received.

Members supported the inclusion of a check sheet for routes as part of the safe route assessment process following issues with a route between the Ketton and Normanton wards.  The route had previously been deemed safe but on re-inspection by Mr Brown this was the case and the route had been deemed unsafe due to vegetation growth. 

It was felt that the amount of notice given should transport arrangements need to be changed may not always be sufficient, particularly where the child in question had special needs and may not be able to adjust to a last minute change to their regime.   The Transport Operations Manager, Mrs Odabas, advised members that any changes made to travel arrangements were done in conjunction with the relevant Case Officer and would need a manager’s authority before it could be implemented.  She also advised that changes could not be made without response from affected families and sometimes this response was not always forthcoming which could add to the time allowed and result in less time being available for notification of the change.

Members asked clarification on the use of seatbelts (where fitted) as paragraph 5.1 of the report (page 15) stated that seatbelts must be worn by those 14 or over but there was no legal requirement for 3-13 year olds to do so.  On page 22 of the report (Appendix C) states “Always wear the seatbelt provided and store it properly at the end of the journey”.  Mrs Odabas advised that the wording on page 15 was directly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 268.

To consider the draft Terms of Reference for the Neighbourhood Plans Working Group.

The Chairman of the Panel, Mr Lammie, advised that at the last meeting the Panel chose to take Neighbourhood Planning forward as a task and finish group.  The Panel were asked to consider the draft Terms of Reference for the working group which had been provided by the lead officer Roger Ranson.

A meeting with the officer and task and finish group members was to be arranged as soon as possible and information gathered would be fed back to members at the next meeting of the Scrutiny Panel.

AGREED:

i)             That the Terms of Reference for the Task and Finish Group be approved.

---oOo---

Mr Stewart left the meeting and did not return.

---oOo---

To consider Scrutiny issues to review.

Copies of the Forward Plan will be available at the meeting.

Agenda items for the meeting to be held on Thursday 24 November 2016:

i)              Poverty in Rutland sub group

ii)             Neighbourhood Plans Task and Finish Group Update

iii)            Revised Signs Policy

iv)           Highways Asset Management Plan

To receive any other items of urgent business which have been previously notified to the person presiding.

There was no urgent business.

Thursday 24 November 2016, 7.00pm