Council and councillors

To confirm the record of the meeting of the Places Scrutiny Panel held on 9 February 2017 (previously circulated)

The Record of the Meeting of the Places Scrutiny Panel held on 9 February 2017 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.

Mr Begy declared an interest in item 10 of the agenda as he was a member of Oakham Rugby Club and Oakham Cricket Club.

Mr Baines declared an interest in item 10 of the agenda as he was President of Local History and Records.

Mr Lammie declared an interest in item 10 of the agenda as he was a member of the Uppingham County Cricket Club.

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, deputations 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 a call-in of a decision in accordance with Procedure Rule 206.

To receive Report No.37/2017 from the Director for Resources.

(Report circulated under separate cover)

Report No. 37/2017 was received from the Director for Resources.

The Chair acknowledged that the reports had been published for some time and been the subject of debate and discussion at other Panels, but welcomed any comments or questions.

Mr Mathias agreed and stated he would answer any questions if needed.

RESOLVED

That the contents of the report be NOTED.

To receive Report No. 36/2017 from the Chief Executive.

(Report circulated under separate cover)

Report No. 36/2017 was received from the Chief Executive.

RESOLVED

That the contents of the report be NOTED.

To receive Report No. 86/2017 from the Director for Places (Environment, Planning and Transport).

Report No. 86/2017 was received from the Director for Places (Environment, Planning and Transport).

Mr Loran, Senior Environmental Services Manager, introduced the report as the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Culture, Sport & Recreation and Environment had been unable to attend the meeting. The purpose of the report was to present to Scrutiny a draft refresh of the Community Safety Strategy for the Safer Rutland Partnership, for 2017 to 2020.

During discussion the following points were noted:

      I.        Mr Loran was aware that there was nothing in the strategy regarding protection of offenders with spent convictions.  It may not be appropriate to place such information in the public document, but he would liaise with the police in how to deal with such issues.

    II.        It was noted that the charts detailing crime in the past four years were difficult to understand and that there should be more text explaining the data rather than diagrams.

   III.        The non-domestic violence spike in the chart included HM Prison Stocken figures and it was questioned whether this should be taken out.

  IV.        Members requested amendments to the document in order to provide the information in a clearer format.

   V.        The target audience of the document was any member of the public and those interested in the subject matter.

  VI.        Miss Waller raised that schools were not included as part of the consultation process, but had read other strategies with schools included.

 VII.        Mr Loran mentioned that there had been an online consultation which had a limited response and had received mixed reviews, with some comments such as “There is no Police Station in Rutland”, suggesting that more awareness was needed.

VIII.        Assistance was being provided online where face-to-face services were not available, such as in remote and rural communities.

  IX.        It was noted that the Government were setting up cyber-crime detectors, putting resources into tackling cyber-crime.

   X.        Mr Loran mentioned that while Rutland was a safe place to live, there was what was known as ‘hidden crime’, where things were not reported on. For example, domestic violence. Some people may not have known of assistance available or were reluctant to come forward. Need to make people feel comfortable in coming forward.

  XI.        Mr Baines raised that there was no mention of rural crime, such as on isolated farm premises. Mr Loran noted that specific mention of rural crime should be considered.

RESOLVED

That the contents of the report be NOTED and that the feedback of the Scrutiny Panel be considered before finalising the strategy.

To receive Report No. 92/2017 from the Director for Places (Development and Economy)

Report No. 92/2017 was received from the Director for Places (Development and Economy).

Mr Clayton, Head of Culture & Registration, introduced the report as the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Culture, Sport & Recreation and Environment had been unable to attend the meeting. The purpose of the report was for Scrutiny to consider the draft Strategic Plan for culture & Leisure in Rutland 2017-20 as part of the consultation process.

Mr Clayton mentioned that the report was produced by the Culture & Leisure Theme Group, and that the Local Strategic Partnership had changed and Mr Walters would now be Chair going forward from 13^th June 2017.

---oOo---

Mr Stewart left the meeting and did not return

---oOo---

During discussion the following points were noted:

      I.        The Theme Group was made up of Arts for Rutland, Friends of Rutland County Museum, Oakham in Bloom, Town Partnerships, and Uppingham First. It was noted that there was an open invite for others to join.

    II.        Mr Begy raised that the report did not detail how any of the actions would be achieved.

   III.        Mr Clayton highlighted that where it mentions that the Council would support functions it did not mean the Council would provide funding, and that this should be made clearer.

  IV.        It was noted to include mention of cycle paths and tracks as they have been shown to improve road safety.

   V.        Local artists should be encouraged to donate pieces of work to museums as this might increase public access to art.

  VI.        Mr Dale noted that the report looked as though it was a wish list, and questioned whether all would be achieved within the timescale. Mr Clayton agreed that the timescale would be more realistic set at 2030 instead of 2020.

 VII.        It was raised that it seemed there were groups doing their own thing, such as Discover Rutland and Rutland Water It was suggested that Rutland County Council should bring these groups together and create for example a sports hub between all groups to get more people involved. Mr Clayton noted that while Discover Rutland was not listed as a partner, they were still involved with the report.

VIII.        The plan was trying to combine groups as it was recognised that there were shared interests between them.

  IX.        Members were happy to see mention of support for improving the library in Uppingham as it was long overdue.

   X.        It was mentioned that a community hub in Uppingham Town Hall is no longer going ahead due to a lack of funding. It was suggested to increase the facilities on offer at the library.

  XI.        Questions were asked regarding the need for the inclusion of the subject of decreasing the impact of smoking, obesity and alcohol consumption in the report, and what relevance it had to culture and leisure. Officers would look to reword this section to focus on encouraging people to be more active.

 XII.        With reference to Catmose swimming pool, it was suggested there should be a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 766.

To receive Report No. 91/2017 from the Scrutiny Commission.

(Report circulated under separate cover)

Report No. 91/2017 was received from the Scrutiny Commission.

Mr Lammie introduced the report, he advised that the Green Paper was now published, questions from Scrutiny Panels had been finalised, and the paper had now been sent out for consultation. The White Paper will show proposals and would go to Cabinet in May and to Full Council to adopt in June.

The Chair invited Ms Brown, Acting Team Manager – Corporate Support, to speak about the Report.

Ms Brown noted that the input provided by Scrutiny so far had been included in the Green Paper, the idea of the Paper coming back to Scrutiny Panels was to give members the opportunity to respond to the consultation and formulate suggested recommendations for inclusion in the White Paper.

During discussion the following points were noted:

      I.        It was suggested for the panel to send responses and ideas for recommendations for the White paper to the Chair

    II.        The panel would like to see the responses received from the consultation.

RESOLVED

That the Panel ENDORSED the Green Paper.

To consider Scrutiny issues to review.

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

The Forward Plan was reviewed.

During discussion the following points were noted:

      i.        Mr Oxley was pleased to see that the Forward Plan goes up to November.

    ii.        Efforts were being made to get reports out sooner.

   iii.        It was suggested that the current Crime Commissioner should come to a future Scrutiny Panel. Members wanted to ask the Commissioner about police in rural areas.

   iv.        Mr Mathias noted that Rutland would be getting an extra Police Officer.

    v.        Miss Waller noted that the Police Constable on their ward had retired, she had not been notified that there had been a replacement.

   vi.        Members requested an update report on Oakham Enterprise Park development.

  vii.        Mr Cross suggested that the reference numbers on the Forward Plan be made live so all relevant information can be found using the number.

viii.        Mr Hemsley asked if a Local Planning Consultation, which would show policies and allocations, should be brought to Scrutiny. It was noted that members might prefer to have it in the format of a presentation displaying the key issues as the report would be over 200 pages.

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

There was no other urgent business.

Date to be confirmed at Annual Council.

Items to include:       Localism Report

                                    Integrated Transport Report

                                    Sustainable Growth Strategy

                                    Poverty in Rutland – White Paper

The date of the next meeting will be advised following Annual Council in May 2017.

Items to consider:     Localism Report

                                     Integrated Transport Report

                                     Sustainable Growth Strategy

                                     Poverty in Rutland – White Paper