·         The Chairman welcomed all parish representatives to the Parish Council Forum.

Miss Gamston read the apologies.

To confirm the Notes of the Parish Council Forum held on 20 October 2015.

The Notes of the Parish Council Forum held on 20 October 2015 were confirmed by parish representatives and signed by the Chairman.

To discuss any matters arising from the Parish Council Forum held on 20 October 2015.

There were no matters arising from the notes of the last meeting.

To receive updates from parish representatives on organisations they represent which might be of interest to other members of the Forum.

No discussion took place under this item.

To receive an update from Rutland County Council

20 minutes for presentation and questions

1)            FINANCIAL UPDATE – Saverio Della Rocca, Assistant Director (s151 officer) Rutland County Council

Mrs Briggs introduced Mr Della Rocca and explained that in the absence on the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council, Mr Della Rocca would be presenting this item rather than an elected member.  Mrs Briggs explained that the Budget had been recommended for consultation earlier this year by Cabinet; to be taken back to Cabinet and then to Council on 22 February 2016 for the decisions to be taken by elected members.  As an officer of the Council Mr Della Rocca would be able to answer technical questions not political questions.

Mr Della Rocca gave a presentation on the latest position of Rutland County Council’s Budget and Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP).

Key areas highlighted included:

i)              The Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review had been completed in November 2015 (for 4 years) against a backdrop of budget deficit.

ii)             Plans included lower departmental spending; some departments protected at the expense of others.

iii)            DCLG Local Government, where Local Authorities sit, was the worst affected.

iv)           The MTFP set out funding and expenditure over the next five years had changed substantially due to the Comprehensive Spending Review and Settlement.

v)            That the Council had the power to increase council tax by 2% plus another 2% for social care.  The Council’s MTFP assumed an increase of 3.99%.  This was the first increase since 2009/10.

vi)           The council tax freeze grant was now part of the Revenue Support Grant.

vii)          The Council was working closely with its partners and looking at how it worked with parishes to close the £2.4m gap by 2019/20.

viii)         Uncontrollable costs were increasing – apprenticeship levy (from 2017/18), national insurance contributions, national minimum wage and pension fund.

ix)           The Council was looking at invest to save capital projects and focussing on business rate optimisation and growth to regenerate the local economy.  Between 2015/16 and 2019/20 £5m would be lost from the Revenue Support Grant.

x)            That the 2016/17 Budget was currently in draft format.  It was proposed that this would be the last year of parish grant, RCC had always passported this element of the Revenue Support Grant.  Parishes had already been notified.

The following points were noted:

                      i.        That an increase to the Precept was the only means available to Parish Councils to cover the loss in income if the Parish Grant was no longer passported.  The Forum was informed that RCC Councillors would have a debate around this issue.  That this could be an opportunity to look to expand the capacity and broaden the base around volunteers.  Sustainability going forward for non-statutory functions was area that would have to be looked as it could not be taken for granted.  Some voluntary sector and community sector services were already procured by the Local Authority as partnerships, for example, Voluntary Action Rutland and the Citizens Advice Bureau.

                    ii.        That a range of factors informed the minimum desirable level of reserves.  The risk assessment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Heather Caldicott, Transport Strategy Officer, Rutland County Council

15 minutes for presentation and questions

1)            INTEGRATED TRANSPORT CAPITAL PROGRAMME UPDATE – Heather Caldicott, Transport Strategy Officer, Rutland County Council

Ms Caldicott gave a presentation on the changes to the Integrated Transport Capital Programme and the pivotal role of the Parish.

Key areas highlighted included:

i)              In November 2015 Cabinet approved a number of changes relating to the Integrated Transport Capital Programme.  Parishes had already been written to regarding the changes.

ii)             The Department for Transport (DfT) provided capital funding to the Council in two blocks; maintenance and integrated transport.  The Integrated Transport block was provided to the Council to help it fulfil its statutory duties through a highway capital programme.  Duties were to prepare a Local Transport Plan (LTP) and deliver the programme of works and policies set down with it; and to investigate accidents arising out of the use of vehicles on the highway and take appropriate measures to prevent such accidents.

iii)            The types of schemes that would be considered would vary, but examples included traffic calming measures such as speed indicator devices and pedestrian crossings as well as transport infrastructure schemes, such as new or improved cycleways or footways.

iv)           The majority of scheme requests would be generated by the local community.  The Council would also put forward proposals either through the outcome of accident investigations or other strategic identification.

v)            In the past more requests were received than funds available and as such a clear and fair mechanism was required for selecting which schemes received funding – this is why the prioritisation process was produced

vi)           Previously scheme requests came direct from residents and then the Parish Council and Ward Councillors were consulted as to whether they were in support of the initiative.  If the schemes w supported they would then be submitted to Cabinet for approval.

vii)          All schemes that came out of the process would have to be checked to ensure that they were compliant with the Council’s Traffic Calming Policy and Highway regulations.

viii)         There were three main changes approved by Cabinet which help to tighten the process up:

1.    Requests via the Parish – all requests must now come direct from a Parish Council, Town Council or Parish Meeting.  Residents wishing to put forward proposals should in the first instance contact their Parish who should then discuss the matter and decide if they wished to proceed and submit a scheme suggestion.   This would ensure that only those schemes that the Parishes supported were put forward.

2.    Way in which schemes are submitted – all scheme requests must be submitted direct from the Parish on a Scheme Request form that the Parish had completed.  It would be up to Parish Councils to put forward scheme requests on behalf of their residents.Parishes without a Meeting or Council – a resident can still make a scheme suggestion, however they will be required to get support from 8 other residents all on the electoral register for the Parish.  The resident making the submission must submit their request on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Neil Tomlinson, Senior Highways Manager, Rutland County Council

30 minutes for presentation and questions

1)            PARISH/COMMUNITY LIGHTING UPDATE – Neil Tomlinson, Senior Highways Manager, Rutland County Council

Mr Tomlinson gave a presentation on LED Street Lighting Proposals.

Key areas highlighted included:

i)              The cost to RCC of Parish street lighting (energy and maintenance) was approximately £44k and the total Parish contribution was around £13k leaving RCC with a net cost of £30k (2014/15 figures).

ii)             Most Parish Councils were paying £1 per Council Tax payer towards the cost of energy for Parish lighting regardless of how many street lights they have.

iii)            Minimal investment from Parishes in current stock towards energy efficient units or maintenance.

iv)           Current RCC energy costs of around £120k on top of parish costs.

v)            That the proposal, subject to Cabinet approval, was to “Upgrade all available stock to LED units.  Categorise all lighting as either highway or community lighting and recover energy costs for community lighting from town and parish councils/meetings.  In future RCC will inspect and maintain all lighting stock throughout the County”.

vi)           Subject to Cabinet and Parish agreement, upgrade almost 3500 existing units to TRT Aspect lighting units; RCC will manage and maintain all County lighting stock and Parishes will be charged a flat fee for energy used on Community Lighting, subject to inflation.

vii)          TRT Aspect Light units offered a 12 year manufacturer guarantee saving on maintenance and repeat visits together with a 60/75% saving on energy and carbon production and were part-night dimmable.

viii)         Benefits to parishes and Town Councils:

a)    Lower rates of energy costs compared to current Parish contracts;

b)    No future maintenance costs for lighting stock for Parishes;

c)    Reduced administration costs/time for lighting provision (one annual payment in arrears);

d)    Competitive and transparent costs for all aspects of lighting provision;

e)    One stop for all enquiries and fault reporting;

f)     No liability for future structural and electrical testing for lighting stock;

g)    Reduced carbon emissions;

h)    Modern, efficient, upgraded lighting stock at no expense to the Parish.

ix)           Benefits to RCC and Public:

a)    Around 3500 upgraded lighting units;

b)    Annual energy saving of around 60% of current costs;

c)    12 year manufacturer guarantee;

d)    Single point of contact for all street lighting faults;

e)    Uniform stock throughout the County.

The following points were noted:

i.              The question of reimbursing Parishes where lights had already been replaced at a cost to the Parish: Mr Tomlinson responded that the Council would look at each individual Parish for costs and possible readjustments.

ii.            That approximately 1000 of the 3500 units in the County were already energy efficient and would be left in place for the time being.

iii.           The Council was looking to invest significant sums into each Parish.  An engineer was reviewing light stock and requirements, safety schemes and some road junctions.  The was no duty for the Council to light the highway.  Existing provision and requirements were being looked at against British Standards for Lighting to meet similar light levels on the ground.  The Council was not looking to increase  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Julia Eames, Project Manager, Health and Social Care Integration, Rutland County Council

This will consist of three presentations:

(1)  Introduction to Better Care Fund

(2)  Assistive Technology (including demonstrations)

(3)  Community Agents Service

45 minutes for presentations and questions

1)            BETTER CARE FUND – Julia Eames, Project Manager, Sandra Taylor, Health and Social Care Integration, Rutland County Council and Charlotte Holly, Spire Homes.

Mrs Eames and Ms Taylor gave a presentation on the Better Care Fund and Assistive Technology. 

Key areas highlighted included:

1. The Better Care Fund was a programme supporting transformation and integration of health and social care services to ensure local people receive better care.
2. Locally, it’s also helping to deliver the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Better Care Together Strategy.
3. The Better Care Fund vision was about working differently, to reduce the demand for hospital services and preventative work.
4. Need for change – changing health and social care landscape, integration would result in better outcomes and enabled people to take an active role in their wellbeing.
5. The current plan focusses on four key areas:

1.    Early intervention and prevention;

2.    Long Term Conditions;

3.    The flow in and out of hospital;

4.    ‘Enablers’

6. Succeeding if people living well with long term conditions.
7. Working on programme for 2016-17.  More integrated prevention; services in the community and via GP surgeries, helping people to find out what’s available for them as their needs change.  More robust approaches to hospital avoidance, discharge and reablement, working with service users to design effective services.
8. Technology Enabled Care – Telecare. Assistive Technology, Telehealth, eHealth and Telemedicine, Information Technology, Smart Homes, Sensory Equipment for people who are partially sighted or hearing impaired and communication equipment for people with communication difficulties.
9. That the service is available through Spire Homes however the Assistive Technology service is available to anyone living in Rutland and not only people living in Spire Homes properties.
10. An increasing older population in Rutland made it important to get technology in soon enough for the longer the benefit.

The Chairman requested that questions were directed to the presenters after the meeting, when it would also be possible to examine the examples of assistive technology on display.

To receive the Parish Briefing Paper (28 January 2016) on issues currently affecting Rutland (to be circulated at the Forum).

Parish Clerks and Representatives are asked to display the document on parish notice boards.

The Parish Briefing Paper for 28 January 2016 was circulated at the meeting.

To consider any other items of business which parish representatives may wish to raise.

Rutland Neighbourhood Watch AGM – 27 January 2016

Mr Gombault informed the meeting that the AGM had been well attended. 

Lynne Farrer, the Vice Chairman of National Neighbourhood Watch had been the guest speaker.  The new organisational structure would mirror the police organisational structure.  There was concern amongst those there regarding Rutland being in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.  The Forum was reminded that Rutland Neighbourhood Watch exists to promote interests in Rutland and will continue to do so within the new national framework.  A major objective was to see Neighbourhood Watch spread across the whole of the county.  Anyone wishing to set up in parishes where there was not one was requested to contact Adrian Gombault, Ryhall Parish Council or the Police.

Monday 18 April 2016

Potential agenda items for the Parish Council Forum should be sent to Corporate Support, Rutland County Council, Catmose, Oakham, Rutland, LE15 6HP, or emailed to corporatesupport@rutland.gov.uk

Monday 18 April 2016

---oOo---

The Chairman declared the meeting closed at 9.15 pm

---oOo---