Venue: Sparkenhoe Committee Room, County Hall, Glenfield. View directions
Contact: Miss C Tuohy (0116 305 5483). Email: cat.tuohy@leics.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
In attendance. Mr. B. Pain CC, Cabinet Lead Member for Environment and Transport. |
|
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 11 October 2018 were taken as read, confirmed and signed. |
|
Mr T. W. Thompson Minutes: The Committee were sad to note the death of Tommy Thompson, former Director of
Planning and Transportation. Mr Thompson joined the Highways Department as it
was then known in 1972 as Principal Assistant County Surveyor. He went on to
become Director of Planning and Transportation in 1988 and served in the post
until 1997. It was noted the Council
owed him a great debt for all he had contributed to the County. |
|
Question Time. Minutes: The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 35. |
|
Questions asked by members. Minutes: The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5). |
|
Urgent Items. Minutes: There were no urgent items for consideration. |
|
Declarations of interest. Minutes: The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to declare any interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting. |
|
Declarations of the Party Whip. Minutes: There were no declarations of the party whip. |
|
Presentation of Petitions. Minutes: The Chief Executive reported that no petitions had been received under Standing Order 36. |
|
Risk Based Management Approach. There will be a presentation for this item. Minutes: The Committee considered a presentation from the Director of
Environment and Transport concerning the Risk Based Management Approach to
Highways Maintenance. A copy of the presentation, marked “Agenda Item 8” is
filed with these minutes. Arising from discussion the following points were noted: i)
The ‘Well-managed Highway Infrastructure’ was
published on 28 October 2016 and set out an integrated, risk based approach to
managing highway infrastructure assets that is to be applied across the United
Kingdom. ii)
The introduction of the new Code of Practice
meant a move to the Risk Based Approach which would use the type of defect and
assess it against the maintenance hierarchy of the network to give a resulting
priority repair time allowing for better management of Highways defects. The
underlying objective is to maximise preventative maintenance and minimise
reactive maintenance. iii)
Gully emptying had been one of the first areas
that the department had looked into for the move to a Risk Based Approach.
Emptying had been moved to a 10 months, 24 months and 36 months
cyclical maintenance service. Those on a three year cycle would be inspected at
the two year stage to see if earlier intervention was needed. iv)
Work was being undertaken on how best to
circulate information about scheduled works, such as gully emptying, to
Members, Districts, Town and Parish Councils. RESOLVED: That the members note the presentation. |
|
Update on the Implementation of the Revised Funding Methodology for Community Transport. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee considered a report from the Director of
Environment and Transport on the update on the implementation of the revised
funding methodology for Community Transport. A copy of the report, marked
“Agenda Item 9” is filed with these minutes. From the discussion, the following points arose: i)
The
invaluable service that Community Transport Operators provide to the County. ii)
No negative feedback had been received from Community Transport
Operators or users of the service and there had actually been a one percent increase in passenger numbers. iii)
The County Council would continue to work closely with all
Operators to support them to ensure the robustness and accuracy of the data
collected. iv)
Shree
Ram Krishna Community Project did not meet the criteria for Community Transport
Operators and, as a result, funding had been phased out. RESOLVED: That the update on
the Implementation of the Revised Funding Methodology for Community Transport
be noted. |
|
Annual Performance Report 2017/18. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee considered a joint report of the Chief
Executive and Director of Environment and Transport on the Environment and
Transport Annual Performance Report 2017/18. A copy of the report, marked
“Agenda Item 10” is filed with these minutes. From the discussion, the following points arose: i) Council officers and Leicestershire Police
were working together to determine how a change in Leicestershire’s Police
procedure has affected the number of reported collisions and a report would be
brought in the new year. ii) The ‘total CO2 emissions from LCC operations
(excluding schools)’ showed a significant annual improvement in performance of
the Council’s carbon emissions. This was a result of a biomass boiler being
installed at County Hall, converting Street lights to LEDs, a decrease in
electricity and gas consumption following a review of LCC buildings and an
investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy, and a reduction in
emissions from LCC
vehicles. i) Currently there is no viable market for
rigid plastics collected at RHWSs. The
Council had undertaken market engagement and had no response in looking for a
solution. The Council was unable to recycle at any cost and therefore have
agreed to be more transparent with members of the public and will retain
separation of rigid plastics at certain strategic facilities in order to be able
to react to any changing markets. ii) ‘Satisfaction with cycle/route and
facilities’ had improved slightly since the previous year. It was measured via
satisfaction as it is often given as a reason why people cycled,
Cycling around the County is monitored however it was impossible to monitor
every route. Currently the Council’s objective is to improve the safety of
the road network to support and
encourage cycling, iii) Mandatory School Zig-Zag keep clear zones were
currently being enforced by camera car where the Council had ensured any lines
and signage complied with regulations.
The objective was not about catching people but as a deterrent to
creating an obstruction or safety hazard. iv) Currently a pilot was being undertaken
within the Access Fund Area in partnership with Leicester City Council, for a
school keep clear zone which included a Traffic Regulation Order at certain
times of the day. Managing parking around schools in residential areas was
challenging as any parking restrictions would also affect residents. The Council had
a finite resource but would try to work with any school that were proactive and
had a travel plan in place. RESOLVED: That the Committee note the report. |
|
The Development of a Unitary Structure for Local Government in Leicestershire. A copy of the report submitted to the Cabinet at its meeting on 16 October 2018 and the relevant Appendix (Appendix E) are attached. The Committee is invited to comment on the proposals. The views of the Committee will be reported to the Scrutiny Commission at its meeting on 14 November 2018. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee
considered a report of the Chief Executive which had been submitted to the
Cabinet on 16 October in response to the Cabinet resolution of 6 July 2018 to
enable the Cabinet to consider outline proposals for the development of a
unitary structure for local government in Leicestershire. A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 11’
is filed with these minutes. The Director of
Corporate Resources was also present to introduce the report and made reference
to the Chancellor’s budget announcement the previous week, which had been more
optimistic than expected. He anticipated
that Government departments outside of health would see a flat real-terms
increase in growth and suggested that the following caveats should be borne in
mind:-
Although the pace
at which savings were required might be slower, the County Council would still need
to make savings. After making the
maximum permitted increase in council tax, the County Council would still need
to save between £10 million and £15 million per year to meet ongoing funding
pressures, especially in the light of future uncertainties such as Brexit. Arising from
discussion the following points were raised:- Overview (i)
It was queried why the County Council was
continuing to work on proposals for a unitary structure of local government in
Leicestershire, when the Leicestershire MPs, who had met with the Secretary of
State, and District Council Leaders were opposed to any re-organisation. The Cabinet Lead Member for Environment and
Transport advised that the County Council recognised the position of MPs and
District Council Leaders but there were many other stakeholders who had not yet
had a chance to make their views known.
A democratic process had been started by the Cabinet and it ought to be
allowed to continue. Financial
Situation (ii)
The County
Council was confident that the projected level of savings generated annually by
a single unitary authority for Leicestershire would be in the region of £30
million. This was based on evidence from
recently created unitary authorities as well as a refresh of the figures used
in the 2014 EY report. In
reorganisations elsewhere, savings of approximately £4.5 million per year were
generated for each organisation that was abolished. There was no evidence to support the
assertion that restructuring would cost more than it saved, although it was
noted that a one-off expenditure of £19 million was estimated for the
implementation of a new unitary authority. (iii)
The
development of a unitary structure of local government for Leicestershire would
deliver a level of savings which could not be achieved otherwise and would go a
long way towards ensuring financial sustainability. Recent history had shown that organisations
facing financial difficulties had had a unitary structure imposed on them. It was felt to be better to make a decision
voluntarily and to manage the process.
Indeed, the financial situation was one of the key drivers behind the
proposals for a unitary structure of local government. (iv)
The
projected implementation costs included redundancy costs, calculated at a
higher than average level to take account of the expectation that a higher than
usual number of senior staff would be affected. (v) It might be necessary, as part of the implementation of ... view the full minutes text for item 138. |
|
Date of next meeting. The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled to take place on 17 January 2019 at 2pm. Minutes: It was noted that the next meeting of the Committee would be
held on 17th January 2019 at 2.00pm. |