To confirm the record of the meeting of the Places Scrutiny Panel on 4^th February 2016 (previously circulated).

The Record of the Meeting of the Places Scrutiny Panel held on 4 February 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.

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 had been received.

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

No questions with notice had been 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 had been 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 had been 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. 37/2016 from the Chief Executive.

(Previously circulated under separate cover.)

Report No. 37/2016 from the Chief Executive was received.

The portfolio holder, Mr Mathias, introduced the report, the purpose of which was to report to Cabinet on the Council’s performance for the third quarter of 2015/16. 

Members were reminded that the report had been considered by Cabinet on 16 February with comments recorded in the minutes.  It was observed that comments were being acted upon.

The report was received without debate.

AGREED:

1.    That the Panel NOTED the content of Report No. 37/2016.

To receive Report No. 27/2016 from the Director for Resources.

(Previously circulated under separate cover.)

Report No. 27/2016 from the Director for Resources was received.

The portfolio holder, Mr Mathias, introduced the report, the purpose of which was to inform Cabinet and Members of the full year forecast position as at Quarter 3 for 2015/16 and to alert them to issues that may impact on the Medium Term Financial Plan to enable them to maintain sound financial management of the Council’s operations.

Members were reminded that the report had been considered by Cabinet on 16 February with comments recorded in the minutes.

The following point was raised during discussion:

1.    Officers were requested to give consideration to electric cars when looking to replace the Council’s hire cars.  It was noted that electric cars were not considered a viable at this stage as they could not cope with the mileage and the time taken to recharge.

AGREED:

1.    That the Panel NOTED the contents of Report No. 27/2016.

---oOo—

7.11pm Mr Baines left the meeting.

---oOo---

To receive Report No. 74/2016 from the Director for Places (Environment, Planning and Transport).

Report No. 74/2016 from the Director for Places (Highways, Environment, Planning and Transport) was received.

The Portfolio Holder, Mr Mathias, introduced the report the purpose of which was to consider the proposals for updating the Council’s sign policy.  The Panel was requested to consider and comment on the updated policy (Report No. 74/2016 Appendix 3) and to consider a definition of charity and community events in relation to the policy.

Members were advised that the Policy was to be presented to the Parish Council Forum to be held on Monday 18 April 2016 at which point the consultation would be considered to have finished.

The Rutland Access Group had been consulted and feedback had been received and taken into account.

The following points were raised during the discussion:

1.    The Director for Places, Mr Brown, informed Members that ownership of what was under the highway was not relevant to highway policy.

2.    It was acknowledge that A-Board advertising signs could create a danger for pedestrians which needed to be resolved and alternative ways found to advertise businesses away from the business location.

3.    That an event should only be given charity status if it was a registered charity raising money for charity at charity premises.

4.    The possibility of the enforcement  exercise/campaign continuing as normal practice.

5.    The timely removal of planning application notification signs.

6.    The policy should have the scope to deal with ‘pop up’ events, for example, a Scout Jumble Sale.

7.    The income referred to in Appendix 2 to Report No. 74/2016 related to charges covering administration costs.  Concerns were raised on how administered and the actual costs.

8.    Should a member of the public trip over an A-Board would liability fall on the Authority for allowing?  The Council needed to see and record proof of insurance.

9.    That signage was to be included in the Oakham Neighbourhood Plan.

10. That clear guidance was required to be consistent.

11. Market towns considering the possibility of a location map of business to be displayed in a central location.

12. That the Policy should not contain reference to a minimum width of 1.2 metres to be maintained (para. 2.3).

13. The Panel was sceptical of the policy being implemented; administratively it was felt that it would be difficult to implement together with the practicality of costs and that it would be too bureaucratic.

AGREED:

1)    That comments would be feedback to the Senior Highways Manager.

---oOo---

7.58pm Mr Baines rejoined the meeting

---oOo---

To receive Report No. 73/2016 from the Director for Places (Development and Economy).

Report No. 73/2016 from the Director for Places (Development and Economy) was received.

The Director for Places, Mr Philipson, introduced the report the purpose of which was to update Members on the progress on the Rutland Local Plan Review (LPR) and the next stages in the review process.

The following points were raised during discussion:

1.    That separate data had been collected for Uppingham.

2.    That this the a countywide review, with the survey area extending beyond County boundaries reflecting the way people shopped.  The health check on each town centre was précised in the report; drawn to published neighbourhood plans and business reports.

3.    That Uppingham and Oakham town centres were considered to be performing well although separate retention rates were not supplied it was noted in the Appendix A to Report No. 73/2016 (para. 7.6) that £39.6m of the £175.8m of comparison goods (non-food) expenditure available to residents of the survey area was retained by Oakham and Uppingham town centres (22.5%).

4.    That there was a need to be aware of the differences between the two market towns otherwise there was a risk of destroying both.

5.    The need to protect the existing supply of employment land and premise was acknowledged although it was noted that there did not appear to be evidence of consideration being given to smaller centres.  Existing allocations were regularly reviewed, looking at sustainability and suitability for business use.

6.    Caution was urged regarding the removal of parking spaces in the towns as businesses depended on people driving in.

7.    Members were advised that the commissioned retail report (43 pages) was being reviewed before being published.

8.    In response to a Member’s query, the Panel was advised that a number of companies in the county were looking to expand and move out of existing premises allowing for smaller companies to occupy the vacated space.  Opportunities at Oakham Enterprise Park were being looked at.

AGREED:

1)    That the Panel NOTED the progress on the Rutland Local Plan Review and the next stages in the review process.

To consider Scrutiny issues to review.

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

It was agreed that future reports relating to Neighbourhood Plans would be circulated to the Panel for noting. 

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

There was no urgent business.

To be confirmed.

Date to be confirmed.