Agenda, decisions and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

Members to declare any interest as appropriate in respect of items to be considered at this meeting.

Councillors Orson and Pearson each declared a personal interest in any items relating to Leicestershire County Council, due to their roles as County Councillors.

Councillors Orson and Pearson each declared a personal interest in any items relating to Leicestershire County Council, due to their roles as County Councillors.

There are no items for consideration.

There were no items for consideration.

There were no items for consideration.

The Leader of the Council to submit a report which advises Members

(a)  of the current state of performance against the defined performance reporting measures for the priority themes within the Council’s Corporate Priorities for the fourth quarter of the financial year 2018-19;

(b)  of the  position at the end of the council year regarding Members’ priorities as set out in the Council’s Corporate Delivery Plan and the steps being taken to develop the corporate delivery plan for the period 2019 to 2023;

(c)  the Council’s current Corporate Risk Register. It is important that Cabinet are aware of the significant risks that face the Council and have ownership of the risk management arrangements in place and the activities that are being undertaken to mitigate those risks

(1)  Progress against the Corporate Delivery Plan and quarter 4 performance be noted;

(2)  The steps being taken to develop the Council’s new Corporate Strategy 2020 to 2024 be noted;

(3)  The contents of the Corporate Risk Register be noted.

The Leader of the Council

(a)   submitted a report, advising Members

·         of the current state of performance against the defined performance reporting measures for the priority themes, within the Council’s Corporate Priorities for the fourth quarter of the financial year 2018/19;

·         of the position at the end of the Council year, regarding Members’ priorities, as set out in the Council’s Corporate Delivery Plan and the steps being taken to develop the Corporate Delivery Plan for the period 2019 to 2023;

·         of the Council’s current Corporate Risk Register. It was important that Cabinet were aware of the significant risks facing the Council and that they had ownership of the risk management arrangements in place and the activities which were being undertaken to mitigate those risks;

(b)   commented that the new governance arrangements had presented a ‘big learning curve’ for this Council.  The Chief Executive, Director for Law and Governance and the Leader had experience of a Cabinet/Executive Model of governance.  A Cabinet Model was more Member orientated, enabling Members to take ownership of reports.  Lead Members would present reports at Cabinet meetings and officers would provide any necessary clarification if required to do so;

(c)    advised of the purpose of the report, in relation to updating Members on progress against the Corporate Delivery Plan 2018-20, on steps being taken to develop a new Corporate Strategy 2020-24, detailing the outturns for quarter 4 2018/19 Corporate Performance Measures and the Council’s Risk Register, which included ten risks and the mitigating actions being taken against these risks;

(d)   commented that performance and risk were the ‘barometer of the Council’.  It was impossible to have all green status items (items which were on track and progressing well).  The performance information for quarter 4 2018/19, as detailed at Appendix 1 of the report (Corporate Performance Measures Dashboard) and the current position of delivery against the Council’s Corporate Priorities was used to inform the Cabinet and assist the formation of policy and oversight of the Council priorities;

(e)   provided a summary of the report, highlighting

1.    Corporate Performance Measures – Quarter 4 2018/19.  Becoming more transparent and accountable were some of the key reasons for changing the Council's governance processes and the report detailed both positive progress and areas of challenge for the Council, creating a baseline position for the Council’s new Corporate Strategy, which would shape how the Council would respond to local needs over the next four years.  Appendix 1 set out the Council’s performance against measures mapped to the Council's Corporate Priorities.  Appendix 1 includes two years of data (eight quarters).  Key points to note were:

·         Place Priorities.  The Council had aspirations to create a vibrant town centre and it was thriving.  There were few shop vacancies and this was largely due to the Council and other organisations working in partnership.  The Council also aimed to increase the availability of good quality homes and inspire a clean, attractive environment.  The Council showed high/improving performance in a number of areas;

·         People Priorities.  It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Portfolio Holder for Corporate Governance, Access and Engagement to submit a report which states

(a)  as part of the budget setting process the Council has approved a reduction in grant to the Citizens’ Advice Bureau (CAB) now known as Citizens’ Advice Leicestershire (CAL) of £17k per annum, the total reducing from £44k to £27k;

(b)  CAL have identified two different options as to how they would operate within the grant allocated, which are still in the early stages of development;

(c)  This report asks Cabinet to note that the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Governance, Access and Engagement uses her delegated authority to determine whether the options proposed represent a satisfactory use of the grant funding in terms of value for money and if so, which (if any), is an acceptable option to the Council.

It be noted that the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Governance, Access and Engagement would exercise her delegated authority to determine whether either of the options proposed by Citizens Advice Leicestershire or any alternative emerging from the ongoing discussions, represent a satisfactory use of the grant funding in terms of value for money to enable implementation by 1 July 2019.

The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Communities

(a) submitted a report, which stated that

·         as part of its budget setting process, the Council had approved a reduction in grant to the Citizens’ Advice Bureau (CAB), now known as Citizens’ Advice Leicestershire (CAL) of £17k per annum, the total reducing from £44k to £27k;

·         CAL had identified two different options as to how they would operate within the grant allocated, which were still in the early stages of development;

·         this report asked Cabinet to note that the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Governance, Access and Engagement use her delegated authority to determine whether the options proposed represent a satisfactory use of the grant funding, in terms of value for money and if so, which (if any) is an acceptable option to the Council.

(b) emphasised that as part of its budget setting, the Council had approved a reduction (of £17k) in community grant to CAL;

(c) highlighted the recommendation at 3.1 of the report, giving her, as Portfolio Holder for Housing and Communities, delegated authority to determine the options when working with CAL and with officers, to ensure the Council retained an effective CAL service to the community and considered (and delivered) the change which was needed.

(d) confirmed there was a risk that the savings identified through the proposed grant reduction would be offset by the loss of rental income from CAL.  This risk needed to be mitigated.

(e)highlighted:-

·         Appendix 1 of the report (Original Equalities Impact Assessment), noting Action Plan items 1 and 2.  Discussions in relation to these actions were ongoing;

·         Appendix 1A (Further Information from Citizens’ Advice Bureau (CAB)).  Value for money was important to consider.  This Council paid quid highly for the CAL service.  The grant reduction would place Melton on a par with other district contributions on a per head of population basis.

There being no comments or questions from Members, Councillor Freer-Jones moved the recommendation and Councillor Illingworth seconded.  Members voted unanimously in favour.

DECISION (NON-KEY)

It be noted that the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Governance, Access and Engagement would exercise her delegated authority to determine whether either of the options proposed by Citizens Advice Leicestershire or any alternative emerging from the ongoing discussions, represent a satisfactory use of the grant funding in terms of value for money to enable implementation by 1 July 2019.

Reason:-

As part of the grant reduction, members wanted to understand how CAL would operate their service and whether how they delivered their service was satisfactory and value for money. Although the Portfolio Holder can exercise her delegation it is important that Cabinet note that it will be necessary for the portfolio holder to consider the options in time to implement the preferred option by 1^st July 2019.

The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Regulatory Services to submit a report which seeks approval to go out to formal consultation on the making of a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) relating to dogs and aspects of anti-social behaviour (following initial consultation with the Police) in accordance with the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the Act)

Consultation on the draft Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) be undertaken between 1 July 2019 and 30 August 2019.

The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Regulatory Services

(a)   submitted a report, which sought approval to go to formal consultation on the making of a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO), relating to dogs and aspects of anti-social behaviour (following initial consultation with the Police) in accordance with the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the Act);

(b)   advised that the report linked with the Council’s Corporate Priorities, namely ‘achieving a clean and attractive local environment’.  It was proposed that a formal consultation on the draft PSPO be held.  The draft PSPO covered dog fouling and antisocial behaviour, both of which continued within certain areas of the Borough.  The existing Dog Control Order had limitations and was being repealed in September.  Despite the Council having no formal statistics on dog fouling, this was an obvious problem for the Borough and action needed to be taken.  The draft PSPO had greater scope and more control over enforcement and prosecution.  It would assist the Council’s Enforcement Officer in dealing effectively with issues such as dog fouling;

(c)    advised that pending Member approval, the Council was ready to go to consultation, as detailed at paragraph 7.1 of the report.

(d)   highlighted that the decision before Members at this meeting was not a key decision.  However, following the consultation, any subsequent policy would be a key decision.

(e)   commented that fixed penalty notices for dog fouling had been a £75 statutory fine for a number of years and suggested raising these to £100.

A Member noted the active social media campaign on dog fouling in 2017.  The Council now had a dedicated Enforcement Officer in post and were proposing a consultation process to enable such issues to be dealt with more effectively.

A Member noted that the current Dog Control Order was Borough wide.  Would the PSPO be Borough wide too?

The Director for Law and Governance advised that the Council had the power to define the area included in any PSPO.  Possible areas for inclusion were defined on the plans before Members.

The Environmental Services Manager advised that there were exemptions which would not be covered in the PSPO, such as agricultural and private land.

The Member warned against raising the fixed penalty notice from £75, as those issued with fines did not pay and the Council already spent time and money trying to recover these fines.  Why increase them when they do not get paid.

The Environmental Services Manager highlighted that at this stage, the Council sought Members’ approval to go to consultation.  Any decision on raising the sum of fixed penalty notices would be sought following consultation.

The Chief Executive advised that enforcement was only one option given to the Enforcement Officer, who would decide the most appropriate action to take.

The Environmental Services Manager confirmed that since the Enforcement Officer had been in post, every fixed penalty notice had been paid except one, which was going to court.

A Member commented that they completely supported the proposals and raising the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Portfolio Holder for Growth and Prosperity to submit a report seeking Members’ approval to enter into a Statement of Commitment and Collaboration with other Local authorities and the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) within the Trans-Midlands Trade Corridor. The Statement presents Government with a statement of commitment to collaborate across political boundaries to develop a strategic economic growth plan for the corridor.  This new strategy and delivery plan will set out how each partner can contribute to a wider, national agenda and collectively support the functional economic geography of the corridor.  The Trans- Midlands Corridor is largely defined by the A46, part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN), which runs for over 250 kilometres from the M5 at Tewkesbury to Grimsby and on to Hull via the A15; although there are also some important rail links connecting major towns and cities.

The Trans Midlands Trade Corridor Proposal be noted and the signing of the Statement of Commitment and Collaboration be confirmed.  Any amendment to the wording of the Statement be delegated to the Portfolio Holder for Growth and Prosperity, working in consultation with with the Leader of the Council and the Assistant Director for Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services.

The Portfolio Holder for Growth and Prosperity

(a)  submitted a report, seeking Members’ approval to enter into a Statement of Commitment and Collaboration with other local authorities and the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) within the Trans-Midlands Trade Corridor. The Statement presented Government with a statement of commitment to collaborate across political boundaries to develop a strategic economic growth plan for the corridor.  This new strategy and delivery plan would set out how each partner could contribute to a wider, national agenda and collectively support the functional economic geography of the corridor.  The Trans- Midlands Corridor was largely defined by the A46, part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN), which ran for over 250 kilometres from the M5 at Tewkesbury to Grimsby and on to Hull via the A15; although there were also some important rail links connecting major towns and cities.

(b)  thanked officers, particularly the Chief Executive and the Assistant Director for Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services for the Strategic Growth Plan and for helping to ‘put Melton on the map’.  The Trans Midland Trade Corridor proposal was good news for Melton and this Council was the first to consider it.

(c)  proposed that the recommendation at 3.1 of the report be amended to reflect that he, as Portfolio Holder for Growth and Prosperity (in consultation with the Leader and the Assistant Director for Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services) be given delegated authority to amend any wording of the Statement of Commitment and Collaboration.

(d)  highlighted that the Strategic Plan would include:-

·         Vision and Objectives

·         Sector focused analysis of opportunities impacts and outcomes

·         Seeking land value capture opportunities

·         Establishing and appraising a range of interventions

·         Understanding the social value and environmental impacts and opportunities

·         Future-ready opportunities

·         Establishing public/private delivery pacts

·         Developing the integrated investment and policy strategy

(e)  Informed Members that the trade corridor would enable people to seek employment outside Melton, while encouraging tourism and custom to the Borough.

(f)   advised that the Council always sought to work with partners and was ‘outward looking’.  Melton would be very much a part of seeking opportunities to support growth ambitions.

(g)  Drew Members attention to Appendix 1 of the report (The Trans-Midlands Trade Corridor Proposal for an Economic Development Strategy)

Members confirmed their support.  This was a very positive initiative for Melton.  There would be a balance for people to have access out of and away from Melton, whilst trying to fulfil economy by attracting better jobs, tourism and custom to Melton.  If people could exit the Borough easier they could also access it more easily.  Melton had lots to offer and this needed to be publicised.

There being no further comments or questions from Members, Councillor Higgins moved the recommendation and Councillor Orson seconded.  Members voted unanimously in favour.

DECISION (NON-KEY)

The Trans Midlands Trade Corridor Proposal be noted and the signing of the Statement of Commitment and Collaboration be confirmed.  Any amendment to the wording of the Statement be delegated to the Portfolio Holder for Growth and Prosperity,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

A Member raised lone working, in respect of Councillors visiting people at their homes.  They highlighted that this presented a risk to personal safety and asked that work be done to ensure councillors safety, as the Council owed a duty of care to its members.