CHARNWOOD BOROUGH COUNCIL€¦ · Rosebery St Peters Community Centre 1,490.00 Community Facilities ... Feasibility 3,500.00 5. Council – 23rd February 2015 Published – March

Council – 23rd February 2015 Published – March 2015

CHARNWOOD BOROUGH COUNCIL

MEETING OF THE CHARNWOOD BOROUGH COUNCIL HELD IN

THE PRESTON ROOM, WOODGATE CHAMBERS, LOUGHBOROUGH ON MONDAY, 23RD FEBRUARY 2015

PRESENT

The Deputy Mayor (Councillor J. Capleton)

Councillor T. Barkley Councillor I. Bentley Councillor J. Bokor Councillor J. Bradshaw Councillor R. Campsall Councillor J. Capleton Councillor M. Draycott Councillor H. Fryer Councillor D. Gaskell Councillor D. Grimley Councillor S. Hampson Councillor L. Harper-Davies Councillor C. Harris Councillor J. Hunt Councillor M. Hunt Councillor K. Jones Councillor R. Jukes Councillor J. Lennie Councillor S. Maynard Smith Councillor J. Miah Councillor J. Morgan Councillor B. Newton

Councillor P. Osborne Councillor K. Pacey Councillor T. Parton Councillor J. Poland Councillor C. Poole Councillor C. Radford Councillor P. Ranson Councillor B. Seaton Councillor R. Sharp Councillor R. Shepherd Councillor S. Shergill Councillor D. Slater Councillor M. Smidowicz Councillor M. Smith Councillor S. Smith Councillor D. Snartt Councillor N. Stork Councillor J. Sutherington Councillor E. Vardy Councillor A. Williams Councillor D. Wise Councillor P. Youell

Honorary Aldermen F. Hurst and J. Tormey 70. OPENING THOUGHTS AND REFLECTIONS

The Deputy Mayor confirmed that the Mayor was unwell and had sent his apologies. Given the length of the agenda, it was proposed to hold a short adjournment following consideration of item 7 Position Statements. The Deputy Mayor introduced Deacon Jan Sutton, the Mayor’s Chaplain. Deacon Sutton read a meditation by Nick Fawcett and then opened the meeting with prayers.

1


71. APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Bebbington, Day, Duffy, Forrest, Lowe, Paling and Sansome and Honorary Alderman Stott.

72. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY AND PERSONAL INTEREST

The following disclosures of personal interest were made: (i) by Councillors Hampson, Miah, Newton, Osborne, Radford, Shepherd

and Snartt – disclosures of personal interest in item 8.1 2015/16 Council Tax and National Non-Domestic Rates Base, Special Expenses and 2015/16 General Fund and HRA Revenue Budgets, as members of Leicestershire County Council;

(ii) by Councillor Parton – disclosure of a personal interest in item 6.20

Questions on Notice – Loughborough Town Centre Arts Programme, as a member of the Loughborough BID Board;

(iii) by Councillor Stork – a disclosure of a personal interest in item 7

Position Statements, as an account holder with Clockwise Credit Union.

73. MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of Council held on 12th January 2015 were

confirmed and signed.

74. ANNOUNCEMENTS 74.1 DEPUTY MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

No announcements were made by the Deputy Mayor. 74.2 LEADER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS No announcements were made by the Leader. 74.3 CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

No announcements were made by the Chief Executive.

75. PETITIONS

No petitions were presented.

2


76. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

76.1 Councillor Poland – Grants to Community Groups

‘What grants have been issued to which community groups over the past two years, and how will the support for a Voluntary and Community Sector Development Officer support other groups in the Borough?’ In response the Lead Member for Neighbourhood Services and Revenues and Benefits and Customer Services, Councillor Bokor stated: ‘The Council recognises the value and contribution of individuals, voluntary sector organisations and other community-led projects and the benefit they provide to the residents of Charnwood. Through its Charnwood Grants schemes the Council provides a range of grants to help these organisations, groups and individuals access the funding support they need. In 2013/14 £363,400 of grants were awarded and in 2014/15 (to date) £390,250 grants have been awarded to community groups / organisations. A list of the community groups and organisations awarded grants in 2013/14 and 2014/15 (to date) is provided below. The proposed Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) Development Officer post will help to support VCS organisations through identifying funding streams for short term projects whilst working with them on medium- and long-term business plans. One of the main aims being to make them more viable and reduce their reliance on grants and other funding pots. The post would also look at ways that the organisations could work together effectively and efficiently and make the most of their resources, which includes staff, volunteers, premises and other resources and in turn limit duplication and competition for funds. The post will also help provide an additional resource to support VCS organisational capacity. Many of the organisations have had to reduce their paid staff working hours and are much more reliant on volunteers and trustees. In some instances the skills and capacity of these individuals do not always meet the organisational needs. The post will work with Voluntary Action LeicesterShire and other organisations to work with trustees and volunteers to develop their skills.

3


Charnwood Community Grants Awards List

2013/14

Grant Scheme Organisation/Project Name Amount

Awarded

Staying Healthy Age UK Leics and Rutland 1,500.00

Community Engagement Agrani Women's Group 500.00

Loughborough Community Agrani Women's Group 500.00

Community Development Albert Street Artists 4,000.00

Community Facilities Ashby Road Estates Community Association - The Hut 20,000.00

Community Engagement Bangladesh Social Association 500.00

Sports Development Barrow Town Cricket Club 800.00

Staying Healthy Birstall Youth Café 1,704.00

Community Engagement BOSCAPS 100.00

Community Engagement Charnwood Action for Fairtrade 371.00

Specialist Money and Debt Advice Charnwood Citizens Advice Bureau 20,000.00

Strategic Partner Charnwood Citizens Advice Bureau 54,568.00

Community Development Charnwood Twenty Twenty 5,000.00

Community Development CLASH 2,500.00

Sports Development Cropston Cricket Club 800.00

Strategic Partner Fearon Hall 26,650.00

Staying Healthy Fusion Lifestyle 500.00

Staying Healthy Fusion Lifestyle 1,000.00

Staying Healthy Fusion Lifestyle 2,000.00

Strategic Partner Gorse Covert Community Centre 17,860.00

Staying Healthy Gunns Community Gym 510.00

Community Facilities Haddon Way Residents Association - Community Centre (Feasibility Study) 4,983.00

Community Development Hathi Productions 2,600.00

Loughborough Community Home-Start 1,000.00

Loughborough Community Loughborough Mela 2013 1,500.00

Specialist Money and Debt Advice

Human Rights and Equalities Charnwood 6,000.00

Strategic Partner Human Rights and Equalities Charnwood 9,968.00

Strategic Partner

Human Rights and Equalities Charnwood - Bangladeshi Community Project 8,369.00

Strategic Partner John Storer House Foundation 35,746.00

Community Facilities John Storer House Foundation 10,800.00

Community Facilities King George's Field Charity - Woodhouse Eaves Village Hall 7,500.00

4


Staying Healthy La Leche League Birstall 400.00

Community Engagement Leics & Rutland Playing Field Association 250.00

Strategic Partner Living Without Abuse 10,852.00

Loughborough Community Loughborough Canal & Boat Festival 500.00

Community Development Loughborough District Scout Council 3,000.00

Loughborough Community Loughborough Foyer NCHA 900.00

Staying Healthy Loughborough Muay Thai 2,000.00

Sports Development Loughborough Students Futsal Club 250.00

Staying Healthy Loughborough University Sport 1,000.00

Community Development Minnie's Friends 3,170.00

Community Engagement Oaks in Charnwood Senior Citizens' Club 200.00

Community Development PACE 10,000.00

Specialist Money and Debt Advice PACE 4,000.00

Staying Healthy Paget Pastures Association 605.00

Staying Healthy Quorn Parish Council 950.00

Loughborough Community R & R Care Ltd 400.00

Community Facilities Rosebery St Peters Community Centre 1,490.00

Community Facilities Rosebery St Peters Community Centre 2,435.00

Strategic Partner Rosebery St Peters Community Centre 4,645.00

Community Development Rural Community Council (Leics) 5,000.00

Community Engagement Shepshed Community Plan Steering Group 200.00

Staying Healthy Shepshed Diabetic Self Help Group 400.00

Staying Healthy Shepshed Dolphin Swimming Group 490.00

Staying Healthy Shepshed Lions 500.00

Strategic Partner Shepshed Volunteer Centre 8,550.00

Community Development Shree Ram Krishna Community Project - Saheli Women's Project 1,500.00

Sports Development Sileby Town Cricket Club 265.00

Sports Development Sileby Town Cricket Club 800.00

Community Development Sorrel Youth Café 4,000.00

Community Facilities Swithland Memorial Hall 1,000.00

Staying Healthy Swithland Parish Council 950.00

Community Engagement Syston in Bloom 370.00

Sports Development Syston Town Cricket Club 500.00

Strategic Partner Syston Volunteer Centre 8,550.00

Community Facilities The Carpenters Arms - Facilities 4,000.00

Community Facilities The Carpenters Arms - Feasibility 3,500.00

5


Study

Staying Healthy The PBC Foundation 700.00

Community facilities Thorpe Acre Scout Group 3,496.00

Loughborough Community Three Close Tenants Association 750.00

Staying Healthy Three Close Tenants Association 750.00

Community Facilities Thurmaston Parish Council - Silverdale Park 4,000.00

Staying Healthy Ummaymah - Mother and Toddler Group 405.00

Sports Development Vale Judo (Loughborough) 250.00

Strategic Partner Victim Support 4,228.00

Sports Development Wenlo Group Riding for the Disabled Association 250.00

Staying Healthy Worth-it Projects 2,000.00

Community Development Worth-it Projects 5,000.00

Community Facilities Youth Shelter 4,162.50

Total £363,442.50

2014/15 – up to 16 February 2015

Grant Scheme Organisation/Project Name Amount

Awarded

Staying Healthy Age UK Leics & Rutland £1,500.00

Community Development & Engagement Albert Street Artists £3,500.00

Staying Healthy Community Albert Street Artists £2,000.00

Community Development & Engagement Anstey Youth Café £3,000.00

Community Development & Engagement Bangladesh Social Association £4,000.00

Staying Healthy Barrow upon Soar Parish Council £1,800.00

Community Development & Engagement Charnwood Action for Fairtrade £500.00

Specialist Money & Debt Advice Charnwood Citizens Advice Bureau £20,000.00

Strategic Partner Charnwood Citizens Advice Bureau £55,727.57

Sports Development Charnwood Table Tennis Club £95.00



Sports Development Charnwood Trampoline Club £155.00

Sports Development Charnwood Trampoline Club £1,500.00

Strategic Partner Charnwood Twenty Twenty £8,600.00

Staying Healthy CLASH £250.00

Community Development & Engagement Complete Wasters £900.00

6


Staying Healthy Coping with Cancer £2,000.00

Community Development & Engagement Corner Garden Residents Group £2,892.00

Strategic Partner Fearon Hall £27,216.67

Community Development & Engagement

Forest Road North and Holywell Drive Area Residents Group (FRHARG). £208.00

Community Development & Engagement Glebe House £2,500.00

Loughborough Community Glebe House £1,500.00

Strategic Partner Gorse Covert Community Centre £18,239.53

Sports Development Gynsill Lawn Tennis Club £496.00

Loughborough Community

Human Rights & Equalities Charnwood £1,965.00

Specialist Money & Debt Advice

Human Rights & Equalities Charnwood £6,000.00

Strategic Partner Human Rights & Equalities Charnwood £18,726.56

Strategic Partner John Storer Charnwood £77,355.25

Strategic Partner Shepshed Volunteer Centre £8,731.69

Strategic Partner Living Without Abuse £12,098.45

Community Development & Engagement Loughborough District Scout Council £2,000.00

Loughborough Community Loughborough District Scout Council £500.00

Sports Development Loughborough Futsal Club £61.00




Community Development & Engagement Marias Singers £2,000.00

Community Development & Engagement Marios Tinenti Centre £8,500.00

Loughborough Community Minnie's Friends £2,000.00

Staying Healthy Minnie's Friends £1,950.00

Sports Development Newtown Linford Cricket Club £888.00

Community Development & Engagement Parish Of Birstall and Wanlip £300.00

Staying Healthy Peter le Marchant Trust £650.00

Specialist Money & Debt Advice PACE £4,000.00

Community Facilities Quorn Old School Trust £1,242.00

Strategic Partner Rosebery St Peters Community Centre £4,743.25

Sports Development Rothley Park Cricket Club £800.00

7



Rural Community Council Leicestershire and Rutland £5,000.00

Sports Development Shepshed Badminton Club £177.50

Staying Healthy Shepshed Dolphins £1,500.00

Sports Development Shepshed Swimming Club £200.00

Community Development & Engagement grant Shepshed Toy Library £3,000.00


Shree Ram Krishna Community Project £2,000.00

Loughborough Community

Shree Ram Krishna Community Project £1,200.00

Sports Development Sileby Cricket Club £132.50

Sports Development Sileby Cricket Club £132.50

Sports Development Sileby Town Cricket Club £140.00

Community Development & Engagement Sorrel Youth Café £5,000.00

Community Development & Engagement Sorrel Youth Café Ltd £2,500.00

Community Facilities Syston Methodist Church £15,000.00

Strategic Partner Syston Volunteer Centre £8,731.69

Staying Healthy The Leslie Edwards Trust £550.00

Staying Healthy The PBC Foundation £60.00

Staying Healthy Thrummy Drummer Dementia Group £800.00

Sports Development Unicorn Table Tennis Club £95.00

Sports Development Upstart Gymnastics £249.50

Strategic Partner Victim Support £3,225.13

Community Development & Engagement Vista £8,500.00

Community Facilities Wanlip Church & Community Centre £5,000.00

Community Development & Engagement Worth-it Projects £4,000.00

Staying Healthy Community Worth-it Projects £1,500.00

Sports Development Wymeswold Cricket Club £1,500.00

Community Facilities Wymeswold Memorial Hall £3,737.50

Community Facilities Youth Shelter £2,480.00

Total £390,253.29

Councillor Poland had indicated that he did not wish to make a

statement or ask a supplementary question. 76.2 Councillor Draycott – The HouseMark Benchmarking Report 2013/14

– Managing Voids. Councillor Draycott had given notice under Full Council Procedures

9.9(a) of the following question:

8


‘The HouseMark benchmarking report 2013/14 has compared the Council’s Landlord Service with 41 peer organisations. The report highlights the relative performance of Charnwood in managing voids by comparing the number of empty properties, amount of rental income loss due to voids and the average time to re-let. Could the Leader confirm: 1. Why our performance of 1.21% empty properties vacant and

available to let is almost five times the level of the best performing service, over twice the average and in the bottom quartile for performance?

2. Why our performance of 2.18% lost rental income due to voids is almost three times the level of the best performing service, almost twice the average and in the bottom quartile for performance?

3. Why our average re-let time of 57 days is the worst of all the organisations taking part in the survey and twice the average re-let time?’

In response the Lead Member for Housing Services, Councillor Jane Hunt stated: ‘1. A significant proportion of available properties are refused at least

once before they are let. The following information was submitted to the Performance Scrutiny Panel regarding this issue.

The table below indicates that the refusal rate averages at just over a third of offers made.

QUARTER 2 QUARTER 3 QUARTER 4 2013/14

Total no of lettings

70 69 76 215

Total no properties

refused 26 28 24 78

% refusal rate

37% 41% 32% 36%

Homeseekers refuse properties for a broad range of reasons and these are detailed in the chart below.

9


Typically, refusals are due to the homeseeker no longer being interested in the property. Factors cited include no longer wishing to move or making the bid in error [although this is unfeasible in practice]. In situations where the homeseeker failed to respond to an offer, failed to attend a viewing or did not supply required documentation, the assumption is that they were no longer interested in the property. Unsuitability of the area for the household’s needs is the second most cited factor for refusing a property. The distance to local amenities and/or schools can be an issue for homeseekers as can the distance to friends and family that provide support networks. The third main reason for refusal is the homeseeker being offered another property, usually by a Housing Association. During the year, property condition was a reason for refusal in only 5% of cases (i.e. six refusals from 114 offers). Other reasons for refusal include unsuitable property type (for example, issues with floor level, parking and gardens) and issues with finance or neighbours. A significant majority of refusals occur before viewing, as detailed below.

10


NO OF REFUSALS

QUARTER 2 QUARTER 3 QUARTER 4 TOTAL

REFUSALS

Total no of refusals

45 28 41 114

Total no of refusals before

viewing

30 22 33 85

% REFUSALS BEFORE VIEWING

67% 79% 80% 75%

This suggests that a sizeable proportion of homeseekers bid on properties that do not fully meet their household’s requirements. As the revised CBL Allocations Policy begins to take effect, the number of homeseekers that have refused three suitable offers of accommodation and/or failed to attend three viewings will be suspended for six months. This should focus homeseekers on bidding for suitable properties only.

Additional factors include:

Limited demand exists for certain age-designated accommodation.

Low popularity of particular locations.

2. See response to 1. above.

3. The previous Allocations Policy operated on a two-week bidding cycle, leading to unavoidable delays with advertising and making an offer.

For example, if a tenancy termination came in immediately before or during the bidding cycle, it would be two weeks before the property could be advertised.

Also, the offer shortlist was not be available until the bidding cycle had closed, leading to a further delay of one week before an offer could be made.

A number of decants from Riversdale Court into vacant sheltered units which were held to ensure a range of availability of options for those required to vacate Riversdale Court.

11


The revised Allocations Policy was introduced in April 2014, with a weekly bidding cycle to address these delays.

Applicants now have up to two bids per cycle and three refusals in total before their application is reviewed.

Previously, applicants had up to three bids per cycle and were able to make up to seven refusals before their application was reviewed.

Onus is on applicants to give due consideration to the suitability of a property before making a bid.

The normal allocating process operates as follows:

Make offer.

Three working days to respond.

Make second offer if necessary.

Three working days to respond.

Continue as required until offer of a property has been accepted.

Multiple viewings were introduced in quarter 3 of 2013 to reduce delays in the allocating process.

For information, the HouseMark datasets lack the following information to enable true like-for-like comparisons:

Proportion of age-designated units held by each authority.

Proportion of low demand units held by each authority.

Details of individual CBL schemes, for example:

o Weekly/fortnightly bidding cycles. o Number of bids applicants can make during each bidding

round. o Number of refusals applicants can make.’

Councillor Draycott stated that this was the first of four questions in respect of this HouseMark benchmarking report for the last financial year. This question concerned the time taken to re-let properties at a time when hundreds of people were desperate for housing and yet the Council was taking so long to bring them back into use. That, in conjunction with the considerable loss of rent was unacceptable. The response referred to a significant proportion of available properties being refused at least once before they were let. If that was the case improvements should be made to improve the quality of the stock. She had seen some of the properties considered to be acceptable to re-let; however, many were not to an acceptable standard. Would the Cabinet Lead Member apologise and inform this Council on how the current situation would be improved?

12


In response, Councillor Jane Hunt commented that the HouseMark benchmarking report had stated that it would be wise to treat the figures in 2013/14 with caution as it was the first full year that services had been taken back in house. The Council’s Assisted Transfer Scheme encouraged tenants to move which helped to explain an increase in turnover of 10.6%, which was one of the highest in our peer group. The Council spent relatively little on voids and had improved its re-let times to 79 days in 2012/13; however, those times were still comparatively long and resulted in higher rent loss. It was a complex situation as tenants might be benefitting financially from transfers as intended and a judgement required more detailed cost-benefit analysis. The total cost of a property for responsive repairs and voids work was in the best quartile and one of only three from our peer group. The total cost per property of voids management works was in the middle quartile which was good and the average cost of voids repair was also good.

76.3 Councillor Draycott – The HouseMark Benchmarking Report 2013/14

– Managing Anti-social Behaviour Councillor Draycott had given notice under Full Council Procedures

9.9(a) of the following question: ‘The HouseMark benchmarking report 2013/14 has compared the

Council’s Landlord Service with 41 peer organisations. The report highlights the relative performance of Charnwood in managing anti-social behaviour.

Could the Leader confirm:

1. Why our performance of only 76.69% of ASB cases successfully

closed is amongst the worst performing of all participating Councils and well below the average of 88.9% across all 42 councils?

2. Why this poor performance has dropped so dramatically from the level of 2012/13?

3. Why only 83% of tenants are satisfied with their neighbourhood as a place to live compared with an average of 86% across all councils?’

In response the Lead Member for Housing Services, Councillor Jane Hunt stated: ‘1. The HouseMark data on closed unresolved cases includes cases

closed where no intervention was necessary, anonymous complaints and those where the complainant has requested no further action. Data on cases closed resolved or unresolved cannot, therefore, be used as measure of the percentage of anti-

13


social behaviour (ASB) successfully resolved. More comprehensive performance measures are being developed to measure this in more detail. The HouseMark information compares the Council with 27 organisations, not 41. Not all organisations answered this question.

2. The figure for 2012/13 was 80.37% and the comments above apply. The current situation shows a much improved position and this is shown below. There were staff vacancies and case handling issues during 2013/14 which have been addressed. This is demonstrated by the performance information below.

March 2014

Jan 2015

% ASB complainants satisfied with outcome of complaint

61.5%

91.4%

%ASB complaints satisfied with the way their case was dealt with

65%

87.6%

%Complainants that would be willing to report ASB again in future

87%

96.6%

In December 2014 and January 2015, 100% of complainants were

satisfied with the outcome of their complaint. Similarly, 100% of complainants stated that they would be willing to report ASB again in the future if necessary which demonstrates customer confidence in the service provided.

3. The data is taken from the STAR satisfaction survey carried out by

Charnwood Neighbourhood Housing in 2012. The figure of 83% was an increase compared to the previous survey in 2010 where satisfaction figures were 80%. STAR satisfaction surveys are normally carried out every three years and the survey will be repeated in 2015/16. Looking at the detail of the STAR survey in 2012, only 11% of respondents were dissatisfied with the area as a place to live. Dissatisfaction levels are, therefore, low. It is not possible to identify the issues of dissatisfaction from the survey and this will be addressed in the survey for 2015 so that more information is available.’

Councillor Draycott referred to the serious problems associated with anti-social behaviour (ASB) and the need to try and reduce and prevent it. She acknowledged that resources were limited; however, she did not consider that to be an excuse for the Council performance in managing ASB, particularly when it appeared so few residents were

14


satisfied with the outcomes. She was aware through her own casework of the pressure to close cases when it was apparent that problems had yet to be resolved. Would the Lead Member ensure that the correct procedures were in place to deal effectively with ASB cases?

In response, Councillor Jane Hunt stated that the Housemark benchmarking report included information on closed cases where no intervention had been required, anonymous complaints and those where no further action was requested. Of those ASB cases, 76.9% had been closed successfully, which put the Council in the middle quartile. 75% of residents were satisfied with the service provided, with only six of the 41 in the peer group achieving a higher percentage. 83% of residents had indicated that they were satisfied with their neighbourhood as a place to live.

76.4 Councillor Sharp – Street Marshal Scheme

Councillor Sharp had given notice under Full Council Procedures 9.9(a) of the following question: ‘Has a Councillor knowingly misled the public? Prior to Christmas, the Conservative Councillor in Southfields wrote to residents to advise that a three month pilot of a ‘Street Marshal’ scheme would begin early in 2015. His press release was also featured in the Loughborough Echo explaining that the scheme would replicate the Street Marshal scheme operating in Leamington Spa. The letter confirmed that all local agencies were in support of the scheme. Having attended a recent meeting of representatives of the Police, University Security, Charnwood Borough Council, Students’ Union and local resident groups it became clear that those local agencies had unanimously rejected such a scheme as ‘too costly and wholly unsuitable to the needs of Loughborough. Could the Leader explain: 1. Whether the council has ever sanctioned a pilot of the Leamington

Spa Street Marshal scheme? 2. Whether a date for a pilot of the Street Marshal scheme had ever

been agreed? 3. Whether the Council or the Conservative Group authorised the

communication of a confirmed Street Marshal pilot to residents of Southfields or the local press?’

15


In response the Lead Member for Neighbourhood Services and Revenues and Benefits and Customer Services, Councillor Bokor stated: ‘The Council has been actively involved in a series of discussions and meetings, to discuss the matter of responding to the challenges of anti-social behaviour related transient noise, with other interested parties including; Loughborough University, Loughborough Students’ Union, Police, Councillors, Street Pastors and representatives from local residents groups. This has included looking at the current issues and challenges, along with existing initiatives being delivered elsewhere aimed at tackling this issue, including the Street Marshal Scheme at Leamington Spa along with other options and possibilities. Those present at a recent meeting, arranged specifically to discuss the matter, unanimously supported working up a revised proposal for a pilot scheme with Security Industry Authority (SIA) trained Student Union representatives, working with and along similar lines to that of the Loughborough Street Pastors. Since the revised scheme has a pastoral approach as opposed to the original enforcement focus of the Street Marshal proposal, those present at the meeting felt better able to fully support the pilot. It is intended that the pilot is delivered by the Loughborough Students’ Union and funded by Loughborough University, prior to the end of the academic year.’ Councillor Sharp stated that the implication in the response was that the Council had never sanctioned this scheme, nor agreed to a pilot date or authorised any publicity for the scheme. It would be helpful to receive clarification on those issues to ensure that the public have not been misinformed as it would appear from the response that the Council was in favour of a pastoral scheme. Concerns have been raised by the Labour Group on numerous occasions and it was unfortunate that this constant stream of misinformation was causing confusion and concern to local residents. In response Councillor Bokor stated that a pastoral approach had been approved in a partnership meeting and she was unaware of any misleading information being publicised.

76.5 Councillor Sharp – Burglary Prevention and ‘Mysouthfields Crisis Line’ Councillor Sharp had given notice under Full Council Procedures


16


‘Has a Councillor endangered the public?

Since Christmas, the Conservative Councillor in Southfields has been visiting local residents to advise of a ‘spike’ in local burglaries and issuing an advice sheet on burglary prevention. This advice sheet includes a ‘mysouthfields crisis line’ telephone number prominently displayed alongside numbers for the Police and Crime Stoppers. This number provided is the Councillor’s personal mobile number. Could I ask the Leader: 1. To confirm whether or not there has been a ‘spike’ in burglaries in

Southfields Ward? 2. Whether the ‘mysouthfields crisis line’ is recognised and supported

by this Council? 3. Whether the ‘mysouthfields crisis line’ is recognised and supported

by the Police? 4. Whether any training has been provided to the member running

the ‘crisis line’? 5. Whether a resident contacting this 'crisis line' in need of a speedy

response to a burglary would be more or less at risk of a delay in response from the appropriate authority?

6. Whether he proposes to roll out such a scheme to all Councillors across the Borough?’

In response the Lead Member for Neighbourhood Services and Revenues and Benefits and Customer Services, Councillor Bokor stated: ‘During the third quarter (October to December) of 2013, a total of 30 burglaries were recorded in the Southfield’s Ward compared with a total of 34 burglaries recorded during the third quarter (October to December) of 2014. Although there was a slight increase in October 2014 when compared to October 2013, overall between October and December 2014, burglaries are indicating a downward trend in the Southfields Ward.’ Councillor Sharp thanked the Lead Member for confirming that there had not been a ‘spike’ in burglaries in Southfields ward, contrary to the information given to residents. It was an irresponsible act when a councillor put up notices informing local residents that there was a residents’ parking pilot. Following complaints from the Labour Group the notices were removed and the scheme never reappeared. Despite complaints by the Labour Group to the Conservative Group, subsequent leaflets have continued to give misleading information, including the issuing of a ‘hotline’ number to call instead of contacting the appropriate authorities, which could put the general public in danger. Would the Lead Member confirm if the scheme has been

17


sanctioned, was it discussed with the Police, has the councillor concerned been provided with relevant training and has a risk assessment on the ‘hotline’ been undertaken? If the answer was no to any of the questions, then why has the scheme not been stopped? In response, Councillor Bokor stated that the answer to all the questions was no and the councillor in question was simply fulfilling his duties as a ward councillor.

76.6 Councillor Poole – Changes to Recycling Collection

Councillor Poole had given notice under Full Council Procedures 9.9(a) of the following question: ‘Please can the Leader of the Council tell me why the residents of Shepshed and Charnwood were not informed sooner and more effectively about not using black bin liners in their recycling bins?

This is now going to impact on the next recycling collection where there will be more recycling to be collected or more likely some residents will just throw their green waste in the normal black bins, which then will negatively impact on the recycling rates for Charnwood.

Surely it would have been better for the Council to inform the residents of Shepshed and Charnwood about what can be recycled in the green bins rather than imposing no collection on hundreds of residents in Charnwood that were refused emptying of their bins and left without any collection for another fortnight. We all are trying to do the right thing by recycling and could the Leader inform us of the rates on non-recyclable materials that were found in the recycling bins before the Council decided to impose this on our local residents?’

In response the Lead Member for Cleansing and Open Spaces, Councillor Fryer stated:

‘We have always informed residents and run campaigns on what is permissible in the recycling bin and what should go in the residual waste bin. The Council also recently agreed a communication campaign with the residents of the Borough to tackle the increased levels of non-recyclable material found in the green bins. This campaign centred around stickers being placed on all green bins to remind residents of the correct materials that can be recycled, but perhaps more importantly, that black plastic sacks, food waste and nappies in particular cannot be recycled. The campaign was instigated to supplement existing promotional work to help improve recycling including press releases, visits to schools, colleges and the University,

18


ongoing discussions with residents groups and articles in Charnwood News as well as on the Council’s website.

This campaign should have been completed before enforcement work was carried out including leaving bins unemptied if they contained non-recyclable materials. Unfortunately, partly due to the cold weather, stickering was not completed and with sharp increases in the amount of non-recyclable material found in some bins, enforcement work was necessary and these were left unemptied. I am pleased to report that most residents were very understanding of the Council’s position and after removing the non-recyclable materials most bins were emptied. We would like to apologise for the inconvenience caused but also thank residents for their positive response, effort and support in helping Charnwood recycle almost 50% of our household waste. Our recycling facility has very low tolerances for non-recyclable material and food waste or nappies cause particular problems at the facility. The rates of rejected materials found in some bins was found to exceed our limit of 5%.’ Councillor Poole acknowledged that the Council had issued an apology in the Loughborough Echo. She was surprised to learn that the contractors had previously been notified that black bags should not be used in the recycling bins. The response had also referred to problems with using stickers in cold weather; however it would appear that there was not a problem with the stickers. She was also shocked to learn that as little as 5% rejected materials could cause so many problems. The current contractor processed all mixed rubbish and recycling for other local authorities using a more up to date process and the Lead Member was asked why that was not happening in Charnwood? In response, Councillor Fryer thanked Councillor Poole for her supplementary question. The response had given a detailed description of the current service and she was not in a position to give any details of how recycling was undertaken by other councils. If people were having trouble because they had no room in their bin they could request an additional bin. She clarified that if rejected materials exceeded the 5% limit then the whole load was rejected, which cost the Council a considerable amount of money. The Council was continuing to try and notify as many residents as possible. Currently over 33,000 letters had been sent to local residents and stickers were still being placed on bins.

19


76.7 Councillor Max Hunt – Future Plans for Garendon Park

Councillor Max Hunt had given notice under Full Council Procedures 9.9(a) of the following question: ‘You have stated your intention to see Garendon Historic Park and Gardens restored and opened up for public access for the first time, providing a new recreational resource for the people of Loughborough, Shepshed, Hathern and other communities. 1. What specific options for its ownership, management, security and

access has the Council considered? 2. What is your preferred solution and how is it funded?’ In response the Lead Member for Cleansing and Open Spaces, Councillor Fryer stated: ‘1. Broadly the options that have been considered are Council

ownership and management or ownership retained by the landowner with management by a Local Management Organisation (LMO).

The applicants are proposing the second option, which in principle is acceptable to the Council, on the basis that LMO management is consistent with Council policy. The type of LMO proposed is a management company approach, one for the historic park and one for the residential area. Both management companies will involve significant resident involvement through directorships. The terms of operation and structure of the LMOs will be conditioned to ensure acceptable levels of sustainability and public access in perpetuity.

2. The Council’s preferred option is that proposed by the applicant

which will be funded via estate charges, agricultural income and sports rental charges.’

Councillor Max Hunt stated that if the Council’s preferred option for Garendon Park was to retain it in private ownership governed with a levy on residents, agriculture and sports facilities, would the Lead Member explain how any charges would be controlled and how public accountability would be maintained? In response, Councillor Fryer stated that the issue would be covered by Section 106 contributions and there would be a Local Management

20


Organisation made up of English Nature, local residents and the Council who would be responsible for it. The developers had already presented a Management Plan as part of their application and there would be strict controls covering the management of the Park.

76.8 Councillor Poland – Charnwood Borough Council’s Financial Reserves

Councillor Poland had given notice under Full Council Procedures 9.9(a) of the following question: ‘Since 31st March 2006, can the Lead Member confirm if Charnwood’s financial reserves have increased or decreased, and by how much? How does Charnwood’s current financial position compare to other similar sized authorities and how has our Total Borough Expenditure changed since 2006 in terms of amount spent?’ In response the Lead Member for Finance and Property Services, Councillor Barkley stated: ‘The Council’s usable reserves have decreased from £18,395k at 31st March 2006 to £16,902k at 31st March 2014, a difference of £1,493k. The usable reserves of four similar sized councils at 31st March 2014 were £127.7m, £51.5m, £45.8m and £95.9m respectively. Their total budgets for 2014/15 are £36.0m, £17.5m, £18.8m and £16.3m compared to Charnwood’s £16.6m. The 2005/06 actual expenditure for the Council was £16,375k which was £197k less than the 2014/15 budget of £16,572k.’ Councillor Poland asked if the Lead Member would detail the amount in the General Fund reserve and the Housing Revenue Account compared to 2006. In response, Councillor Barkley confirmed that there was £3 million in the General Fund reserve and £870,000 in the Housing Revenue Account.

76.9 Councillor Poland – Investment in Charnwood Borough Council’s Housing Stock

Councillor Poland had given notice under Full Council Procedures 9.9(a) of the following question: ‘How much money has Charnwood Borough Council invested in its housing stock since March 2007? Could the Lead Member explain the meaning of the Charnwood Standard and how it compares to our former target and are tenants consulted on decisions regarding investment in our housing stock with their views given full consideration?’

21


In response the Lead Member for Housing Services, Councillor Jane Hunt stated: ‘Capital out-turn investment figures in the Housing stock are given below.

2007/08 £4,334,253.44 2008/09 £4,284,450.21 2009/10 £4,452,496.00 2010/11 £5,519,347.88 2011/12 £6,692,671.72 2012/13 £20,074,429.54 2013/14 £11,656,899.25

Total £57,014,548.04 The Charnwood Standard is given below. It provides a higher standard of accommodation than decent homes. The main differences being in the replacement timescales for kitchens and bathrooms.

Decent Homes

Dwellings which fail to meet this criterion are those which lack three or more of the following:

a reasonably modern kitchen (20 years old or less);

a kitchen with adequate space and layout;

a reasonably modern bathroom (30 years old or less);

an appropriately located bathroom and WC;

adequate insulation against external noise (where external noise is a problem); and

adequate size and layout of common areas for blocks of flats Or Kitchen aged 30 years old or less and a bathroom aged 40 years or less and, because of their condition, need replacing or major repair.

The Charnwood Standard requires properties to have a bathroom aged 30 years or less and a kitchen aged 20 years or less

22


Charnwood Standard WARM, DRY AND SAFE HOME 1. Structurally stable, brickwork, render and cladding in a reasonable

state of repair. 2. Wind and water tight with a roof which doesn’t leak. 3. An average SAP rating for all stock of 75 (current 69). 4. A minimum SAP rating of 50 (unless prohibited through planning

restrictions, or it not technically feasible to do so). 5. Cyclical painting carried out on a 7 year lifecycle. 6 Healthy and safe Home

Valid periodic electrical safety certificate 5 year.

Current gas safety certificate.

Sealed Lithium Battery smoke detectors.

Carbon Monoxide detectors fitted in gas and solid fuel heated properties.

Asbestos survey – Asbestos Management Survey or Refurbishment Survey, subject to existing data & proposed works.

Inform tenants of results and remove high and medium risk asbestos rather than encapsulate and manage in situ where risks are low or very low.

MODERN HOME 1. Building related damp free (linked to condensation, mould free and

adequate ventilation). 2. Components renewed to modern day standards in accordance with

fixed lifecycles.

Kitchens – 20 years.

Bathrooms – 30 years for bathroom.

uPVC or Composite Doors – 25 years.

uPVC Double glazed windows ( except in conservation areas) – 30 years.

Boilers – 15 years.

Full central heating pipework, radiators and electric storage radiators – 30 years.

Roofs - 50 – 70 years (when required). 3 Internal space standards adequate and fit for modern day living. 4 Flexible Home

Properties individually adapted to meet customer needs where possible after recommendations by an Occupational Therapist from Social Services.

5 Communal Areas

Fire Risk Assessment high and medium risk recommendations completed.

Asbestos survey.

Door Entry system.

23


Emergency lighting.

Communal Lighting.

Annual Lift Service Certificate.

Legionella testing programme. 6 Environmental Sustainability

“A” rated condensing boilers renewed on a 15 year lifecycle.

Thermostatic Radiator Valves and/or Room Thermostats.

Programmable Heating systems.

Dual flush WC cisterns.

Low voltage energy saving bathroom and kitchen lighting.

Low voltage mechanical extract fans.

Minimum “C” rated uPVC double glazed windows and doors.

Move from electric to gas heating where possible. 7 External Environment

Safe and Level pathed access to front door. The Housing Revenue Account Business Plan which sets the investment priorities for the next five years was reviewed and approved by Cabinet in September 2014. Tenants at Housing Management Advisory Board were consulted. In addition, on an individual basis, tenants are able to choose the finish and colour for tiles and fittings for kitchens and bathrooms.’ Councillor Poland stated that he now did not wish to make a statement or ask a supplementary question.

76.10 Councillor Draycott – Provision of Litter Bins in Loughborough Town Centre

Councillor Draycott had given notice under Full Council Procedures


‘I enquired within the Council at the end of last year why there were no litter bins near the new seating area in the town centre. Eventually I was told it was the County Council’s responsibility and they were to do the work soon. The area is a very nice addition to the pedestrianised town centre but sadly rubbish regularly accumulates. The cost of clearing and sweeping by Charnwood Council would be minimised by litter bins being available for the public.

Can the Leader explain who is responsible for not providing these much-needed bins and when they will be installed?’ In response the Lead Member for Cleansing and Open Spaces, Councillor Fryer stated: ‘The seating area referred to was part of the new pedestrian area scheme introduced by Leicestershire County Council. The scheme was agreed in conjunction with the Borough Council and where litter

24


bins have been removed they have in most cases been replaced. The Borough Council is aware of the issue of litter bins in this location and commenced a review of litter bins before Christmas. This review will ensure we have an adequate number of bins for use by the public in Loughborough Town Centre and includes a replacement programme that will be completed in the Summer of 2015.’ Councillor Draycott referred to the response which stated that a review was underway and commented that the review was only happening as a result of her intervention. The relocation of existing bins from elsewhere in the town centre was not the answer; it was additional bins that were required. The response referred to the completion of the review by the summer of 2015; however, that was too long. It would only take a few minutes to identify that the additional bins were required by the seating area in the new pedestrianised zone. She considered that no review had been required and the resources spent on that review could have been used to greater benefit. Would the Lead Member accept that the need for a review was an oversight by the Council and ensure that at least two new bins were installed in the shortest possible time in that seating area? In response, Councillor Fryer thanked Councillor Draycott for her supplementary question. She confirmed that the response actually stated that the replacement programme would be completed in the summer of 2015, rather than the review. All litter bins in the town centre were being replaced and the work would be completed as soon as possible. The ordering and installation of the bins was an operational matter in conjunction with Leicestershire County Council.

76.11 Councillor Draycott – Community Shop in Loughborough Councillor Draycott had given notice under Full Council Procedures 9.9(a) of the following question: ‘Months ago the Cabinet took great pride in supporting the establishment of a Community Shop in Loughborough and agreed to contribute to some of its running costs. As Council know this would provide not only affordable food but a number of much-needed services, to many local people desperately in need of such. Can the Leader explain why when showing so much commitment it has left it entirely to the proposer of this scheme to find a suitable property instead of working with them to find suitable accommodation thus speeding up a Community Shop being opened in Loughborough?’ In response the Lead Member for Neighbourhood Services and Revenues and Benefits and Customer Services, Councillor Bokor stated:

25


‘The Council is committed to supporting Company Shop to establish a community shop in Loughborough. The Council fully recognises the positive benefits that such a scheme will bring to Borough residents. From the inception of this initiative officers have been working proactively with the Community Shop team and the local Business Connector to identify available properties in Loughborough that would meet the requirements for a successful community shop. The Community Shop, to house both the shop and the community hub services, requires a premise approximately 4000sq.ft in size, which is in a suitable location to facilitate good community access. The Council have committed to contribute up to £120,000 towards the initial fit out costs of the Community Shop, with Company Shop being responsible for all ongoing revenue and operational costs.’ Councillor Draycott referred to the agreement given by the Cabinet in August 2014 to support and contribute towards the establishment of a Community Shop. In that report it had stated that it was hoped that the shop would be established in three to four months; however six months had passed and her enquiries had shown that the Council was not being pro-active in helping to establish the shop. In view of the need for and the huge benefits this facility would provide, would the Lead Member state what more the Council could do to deliver this service? In response, Councillor Bokor referred to the response and stated that it was taking more time than expected to find a suitably sized premises because there were very few premises in Loughborough of 4000sq.ft. One bid had initially fallen through; however, negotiations had now reopened. Once suitable premises had been found the Council would be providing a grant of £120,000 towards the initial set up costs.

76.12 Councillor Smidowicz – Complaints Related to Rented Accommodation

Councillor Smidowicz had given notice under Full Council Procedures


‘I was pleased to see that the Housing Strategy document which is now open to consultation contains a reference to additional and selective licensing under Section 2. I have been informed by the University that during the period 2013/14 the University student advice team received 398 complaints relating to housing issues.

Could the Leader or his representative provide an indication of what comparable figures are available for the complaints received by different Council departments about rented properties in the Borough?’

26


In response the Lead Member for Housing Services, Councillor Jane Hunt stated: ‘Out of 461 service requests received by the Private Sector Housing Team in 2013/14, 192 were in respect of complaints regarding privately rented accommodation. A breakdown of the 192 complaints by type is set out below:

Complaint Type Number Received

Licensable HMOs 9

Non Licensable HMOs 13

Suspected Licensable/non licensed 3

Housing standards in current accommodation (connected to housing register application)

17

Privately rented (single occupancy/family accommodation)

150

Following the work of the Managing Student Occupancy Scrutiny Panel the Cabinet made a number of resolutions including the collation of data from different Council services and partners on complaints relating to houses in multiple occupation and student occupancy. This work is ongoing.’ Councillor Smidowicz thanked Councillor Jane Hunt for her response and noted that from the information supplied 590 complaints had been received. She was encouraged to note that Loughborough College was now supplying information regarding complaints, which was welcomed by all. Given the current levels of complaints being received, it was hoped that licensing across the private sector would be introduced before that level became extreme. A central Registration and Licensing Scheme would provide vital information which had previously not been available. It would improve the standard of management by ensuring that landlords and agents were aware of their responsibilities and would help to ensure that tenants were aware of their responsibilities and rights. In the long term it would assist with planning and decisions that councillors would have to make to ensure balanced communities. In response, Councillor Jane Hunt thanked Councillor Smidowicz for her comments and for all the work she had undertaken regarding this issue. It was interesting to note that 590 complaints had already been received. Some councils were being taken to judicial review for potentially not having collected enough information; therefore it had been appropriate to take the time to review and gather the necessary evidence.

27


76.13 Councillor Miah – The HouseMark Benchmarking Report 2013/14 - Rent Collection and Arrears Councillor Miah had given notice under Full Council Procedures 9.9(a) of the following question: ‘The HouseMark benchmarking report 2013/14 has compared the Council’s performance with 41 peer organisations. The report highlights the relative performance of Charnwood in rent collection by comparing the rent collected as a percentage of rent due, the total arrears as a percentage of rent due and the arrears written off as a percentage of annual rent. Could the Leader confirm: 1. Why our performance of 99.1% of rent collected is in the bottom

quartile of performance and well below the average of the 42 Councils?

2. Why our performance of 4.33% rent arrears is well above the 3.4% average performance, is nearly three times the level of the best performing councils and has leapt from 3.88% in the previous year?

3. Why our debt write-off performance of 0.53% is well above the 0.31% average performance, is nearly three times the level of the best performing councils and has increased on the previous year?’

In response the Lead Member for Housing Services, Councillor Jane Hunt stated: ‘Thirty two organisations answered this question. The performance out-turn for 2013/14 exceeded the target 96% that was approved in the Council’s Corporate Plan for 2013/14. The Housemark report notes that the Council “focussed on addressing tenant arrears and collection in 2013/14 and has shown a greater improvement than the peer group in collecting rent. It is important to note that a lower level of write-offs does not indicate a good performance. One reason for lower write-offs could be that the debts are not being addressed (are not being collected or processed for write-off). The Council’s write-off policy is followed, including chasing through an external debt collection agency and sufficient provision is made for write-offs.’ Councillor Miah stated that it was disappointing that such a detailed question had received a very brief response. It was a concern that rent collection was in the bottom quartile, rent arrears were increasing and the Council was writing off more debt compared to our peer

28


group. It was also a concern that national policies were affecting local residents. In response, Councillor Jane Hunt thanked Councillor Miah for his statement. She stated that the HouseMark benchmarking report had referred to the Council being focused on addressing current arrears and collection in 2013/14 and that it had shown a greater improvement than their peer group in collecting rent. That had coincided with a 13% fall in the cost per property which at £76 was lower than the peer group average. The rent loss due to voids as a percentage of rent due was also decreasing. The percentage of rent collected had remained stable for the last two years at 99%. Evictions in Charnwood had also decreased and were in the best quartile with only three other councils in that quartile.

76.14 Councillor Sharp – Number of Empty Homes in the Borough

Councillor Sharp had given notice under Full Council Procedures 9.9(a) of the following question: ‘Can the Leader confirm how many empty homes are currently in the Borough and how this figure compares to the other district councils in Leicestershire in relative terms? In addition, can the Leader confirm: 1. How many homes were brought back into use during 2013/14 and

so far in 2014/15 via the range of enforcement orders available to the Council and

2. How many homes were brought back into use during 2013/14 and so far in 2014/15 via partnership grants?’

In response the Lead Member for Housing Services, Councillor Jane Hunt stated: ‘In terms of Council Tax information there are currently 660 properties that have been registered as empty for over six months. Unfortunately there is no information readily available as to how this compares with other Leicestershire Districts. No homes were brought back into use during 2013/14 and so far in 2014/15 via enforcement orders or partnership grants.’

Councillor Sharp had indicated that he did not wish to make a statement or ask a supplementary question.

29


76.15 Councillor Williams – Procedures in Place to Support the Introduction of Universal Credit

Councillor Williams had given notice under Full Council Procedures 9.9(a) of the following question: ‘In preparation for the introduction of Universal Credit there is training planned for residents but do we have training for councillors? The introduction of Universal Credit will have massive support needs for residents. New applicants will be required to apply online. In my ward many residents do not have access to the internet and cannot afford computers. There will also be a requirement for 35 hours of job searching and residents will need somewhere to go for this. Where will they go to get support? For the area around the Bell Foundry it is likely that they will go to the Marios Tinenti Centre. Do we have the resources to cope? Instead of Housing Benefit for Council tenants being paid directly to the Council it will be paid to residents monthly. Many residents will not be able to cope with this and will need support. Can the Leader let me know if we have a strategy in place for practical measures and support mechanisms?’ In response the Lead Member for Neighbourhood Services and Revenues and Benefits and Customer Services, Councillor Bokor stated: ‘Charnwood is included in Tranche 2 of the national rollout of Universal Credit. The proposed start date here will be 1st June 2015. It is proposed to deliver training to Councillors following the May 2015 elections. In this first stage, the rollout is likely to affect a relatively small number of single people who are not on benefit on 1st June 2015. Our existing Housing Benefit recipients are not part of this rollout so none of our existing tenants currently on benefit will move onto Universal Credit until 2016/17 at the earliest. Consequently all tenants in receipt of housing benefit on June 1st will continue to have their benefit paid weekly onto the rent account in the same way as happens now. Only single people who are ‘new’ to benefits on 1st June and whose post code is covered by Loughborough Job Centre will possibly move onto Universal Credit. This means properties and residents in the south of the borough will not be included in this first tranche. In addition to not being on benefit by 1st June and having a matching post code any possible single person who might qualify for Universal Credit must also meet the following criteria:

30


not be homeless, in supported or temporary accommodation, nor a homeowner;

be single, with no dependent children, a British citizen and aged between 18 years and 60 years and six months;

be fit for work;

not have received a payment of Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) or Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) that ended in the last 2 weeks, except where ESA ended due to a decision that you no longer have limited capability for work;

not be pregnant nor have given birth within the last 15 weeks;

not be receiving existing benefits or tax credits, nor awaiting a decision on a claim to them, nor be appealing against a decision not to award any of those;

not be in receipt of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) or Personal Independence Payment (PIP);

have expected take home pay no higher than £270 per month (under 25s) or £330 per month (25 or over) and not have savings in excess of £6,000;

not have any caring responsibilities;

not be self-employed, in education nor have a person acting on your behalf over your claim; and

have a valid bank account and National Insurance Number.

In terms of providing support to those people who do claim Universal Credit they will be advised by the Job Centre as to how they must register and the requirements for job searching etc. Local Authorities will not be responsible for the delivery of Universal Credit. We will of course support residents who are having difficulty making a claim and we do have self-service computers here in the Southfields Office which customers can and will be able to use to register with our advisors assistance. Additionally by November 2015 the JobCentre will have co-located into the Customer Services Area here at Southfields so when the more significant rollout of cases with couples and families commences in 2016 and when existing tenants migrate to Universal Credit in 2017 we will be able to design a strategy that meets the needs of all our customers.’

Councillor Williams had indicated that she did not wish to make a

statement or ask a supplementary question.

31


76.16 Councillor Stephen Smith – HouseMark Benchmarking Report 2013/14 – Customer Service Councillor Stephen Smith had given notice under Full Council Procedures 9.9(a) of the following question: ‘The HouseMark benchmarking report 2013/14 has compared the Council’s Landlord Service with 41 peer organisations. The report highlights the relative performance of Charnwood in customer service by measuring tenant complaints, tenant satisfaction with the overall service and value for money. Could the Leader confirm: 1. Why our performance of 54% of complaints resolved at the first

contact is amongst the worst performing Councils assessed and almost half the average performance of all Councils (83%)?

2. Why only 75% of our tenants were satisfied with their overall service provided by Charnwood which is one of the worst recorded performances of the 42 Councils and well below the 84% average tenant satisfaction level?

3. Why only 74% of our tenants believe they received value for money from Charnwood which is one of the worst recorded performances of the 42 Councils and well below the 81% average?’

In response the Lead Member for Housing Services, Councillor Jane Hunt stated: ‘1. The figures in the Housemark report are not correct. The total

number of complaints received in 2013/14 was 353, 86 of which were escalated to stage 2. As reported to Performance Scrutiny Panel in October and December 2014, the majority of complaints were in relation to repairs with numbers reducing significantly. In 2013/14 there were 317 repairs complaints. The figure for the first half of 2014/15 is 98.

2. The latest information available on satisfaction with the overall

service provided is from the CNH 2012 Star survey. This shows that in 2010, 76% were satisfied. This figure increased to 81% in 2012 with only 11.9% dissatisfied.

3. The value for money figures are again from the 2012 STAR survey by Charnwood Neighbourhood Housing. This needs to be read alongside the Housemark report which states that housing management costs are one of the lowest in the group. Up to date information will be available with the results of the 2015/16 survey.’

32


Councillor Stephen Smith stated that he was surprised by the poor performance in that specific area. The clarification of where issues were was very useful. The Complaints Procedure Panel had noted that repairs complaints were an area that required investigation and there was still further work to be done. The lower management costs were noted; however, if that coincided with a lower than average performance then that could be considered a cause rather than a benefit. Would the Lead Member provide details of the changes taking place to improve the satisfaction rating?

In response, Councillor Jane Hunt thanked Councillor Stephen Smith for his question and stated that the Star survey was completed every three years, with the previous one completed in 2012 before the investment of over £38 million in the Council’s housing stock. Funding was available for the next survey in 2015 and that would give an up to date review and hopefully answer many of the questions raised by Councillor Smith. The HouseMark benchmarking report had also given an overview of how the Council was performing in terms of customer satisfaction and had highlighted how well the Council was performing in many areas, covering repairs and maintenance.

76.17 Councillor Max Hunt – Management of Pedestrian and Cycle Routes Councillor Max Hunt had given notice under Full Council Procedures

9.9(a) of the following question: ‘The applicants to build on Garendon have specified the use of the old

railway line from the A512 to Epinal Way as a cycle route from the development which is in large part currently designated as a shared cycle/footway. What other cycle and shared pedestrian/cycle routes are specified in the present Garendon planning application and who would manage them?

Could the Leader tell Council what the current Quadron contract specifies for (a) cycleways and (b) shared cycle/footways which the Borough Council manages?’ In response the Lead Member for Cleansing and Open Spaces, Councillor Fryer stated: ‘Planning Application P/14/1833/2 includes proposals for a number of new footpaths, footpaths/cycleway, bridleways, as well as upgrades of existing routes such as the National Cycle Route, which runs through the site. If the proposed new pedestrian, cycleway and bridleway routes are acceptable in planning terms there are a number of options for their future ownership/maintenance which will need to be agreed.

33


These could include:

adoption by Leicestershire County Council’s Footpaths Team;

adoption by the Borough Council; or

rolled into the maintenance and/or management responsibilities of a Green Space Management Trust constituted to look after the open spaces on the development.

It is likely that the routes which run through the Registered Park will be the responsibility of the new Garendon Park Management Trust/Charity which the applicants are proposing to be set up. The current Quadron contract requires that all areas of land that the Council manage as part of the contract are maintained to a certain standard. If this land includes either a cycleway or a shared cycle/footway then these will also be maintained to the same standard. This standard varies according to the classification of that land (typology) as identified in maps used as part of the management of that contract.’ Councillor Max Hunt asked that in respect of privately managed areas, such as that proposed for Garendon Park, how would the Lead Member consider that it would be possible to enforce similar or higher standards of maintenance on parkland footways and cycle ways? In response, Councillor Fryer thanked Councillor Max Hunt for his question and stated that once the Garendon Park Management Trust was established it would be likely that the maintenance would be covered under that body in the same way that other areas the Council did not own but had responsibility for were. The details for the Garendon Park scheme would be included in the planning application and Section 106 Agreement.

76.18 Councillor Gaskell – Facilities for Hallam Fields

Councillor Gaskell had given notice under Full Council Procedures 9.9(a) of the following question: ‘Is the Leader aware of the strenuous efforts being made by the Conservative councillors at Birstall who are trying to obtain a post office/convenience store for the new shopping development proposed for the Hallam Fields estate? The Chief Executive of Post Office Limited has been invited to meet up with the councillors, together with the Chair of Birstall Parish Council so that she can see first-hand the social needs for such a facility and the potential business opportunities for the post office which would occur in consequence.

34


I am asking for this Council to endorse our efforts, in order to add weight to our argument.’

In response the Lead Member for Planning and Sustainability, Councillor Vardy stated:

‘There is planning permission for a local centre as part of the Hallam Fields development, which includes four shop units. It is understood that the developer anticipates starting the construction of these units in late spring/summer 2015. It should be noted that the local planning authority has no control over who occupies the units, providing they are occupied in accordance with the planning permission. A post office would be acceptable under the current planning permission.’ Councillor Gaskell thanked Councillor Vardy for his response and stated that he would pass on those comments to local residents and the Post Office Chief Executive. Hopefully the assurance that a post office would be acceptable under the current planning permission, coupled with obvious social need and business opportunities in the area would ensure a positive outcome. In response, Councillor Vardy thanked Councillor Gaskell for his statement and agreed that it was hoped that the Post Office would provide the necessary service.

76.19 Councillor Parton – Support for Partial Street Marshal Trial Councillor Parton had given notice under Full Council Procedures

9.9(a) of the following question: ‘Will the Lead Member please provide reassurance that the Council

will fully and enthusiastically support the partial street marshal trial, being organised by Loughborough Students’ Union?’

In response the Lead Member for Neighbourhood Services and Revenues and Benefits and Customer Services, Councillor Bokor stated:

‘The Council has been actively involved in meetings, arranged specifically to discuss the matter of responding to the challenges of anti-social behaviour related transient noise, with other interested parties including; Loughborough University, Loughborough Students’ Union, Police, Councillors, Street Pastors and representatives from local residents groups. Those present unanimously supported working up a revised proposal for a pilot scheme with Security Industry Authority (SIA) trained Student Union representatives, working with and along similar lines to

35


that of the Loughborough Street Pastors. Since the revised scheme has a pastoral approach as opposed to the original enforcement focus of the Street Marshal proposal, the Council will fully and enthusiastically support the pilot. It is intended that the pilot is delivered by the Loughborough Students’ Union and funded by Loughborough University, prior to the end of the academic year.’ Councillor Parton stated that he supported the scheme because the idea had come from residents. He and local residents hoped that the present scheme worked; however, over the past six weeks he had spoken to over a third of residents in Southfields Ward and no one believed that it would succeed. He regretted that the Labour Group had not been supportive of the implementation of a full Street Marshal scheme. Currently, the late night noise and vandalism on a continual basis was having an adverse impact on the lives of local residents. It was not a new issue and he considered that a Street Marshal scheme would best prioritise the needs of both local residents and students. In response, Councillor Bokor stated that the revised scheme had a more pastoral approach opposed to the original enforcement approach of the Street Marshal scheme. The Council would fully support the pilot scheme which would be delivered by the Students’ Union and funded by the University. It was hoped that the scheme would be successful; however, if it was not then alternative schemes would be considered.

76.20 Councillor Parton – Loughborough Town Centre Arts Programme Councillor Parton had given notice under Full Council Procedures

9.9(a) of the following question: ‘Will the Lead Member please outline how they envisage what effect

the Loughborough University Arts Programme for the Town Centre will have on the efforts to improve footfall, choice and atmosphere?’

In response the Lead Member for Leisure and Culture, Councillor Hampson stated:

‘The Market Town Programme is an exciting project supported by a grant from Arts Council England managed by Loughborough University Arts (Radar) with funding coming from Love Loughborough, Charnwood Arts and the University. Charnwood Borough Council will also provide advice and support. The project has mainly arisen due to Loughborough being selected as a ‘Portas Town’ and the fact that the Business School and the Design School are important centres of research into the future of the town centre and sustainable design.

36


If I may quote an extract from the Portas Review it will give you a feeling of the ambition of the project and what we envisage the effect of the programme will have on the atmosphere of the town. ‘High streets must be ready to experiment, try new things, take risks and become destinations again. They need to be spaces and places that people want to be in. High streets of the future must be a hub of the community that local people are proud of and want to protect.’ (The Portas Review, Dec 2011). Over the coming year Loughborough University Arts will work closely with the two key delivery partners, Charnwood Arts and Love Loughborough to develop a range of outputs that will act as a form of action research, investigating the potential of artists, architects, designers and other creative professionals to make positive contributions to Loughborough town centre. The key objectives from the project can be summed up as

Engaging communities and activating them to deliver initiates

that support the regeneration of the town centre;

Influencing policy and future decisions around the town centre;

Developing projects that can be sustainable and have long term

benefits;

Deliver high quality artistic projects.

A key aspect of the project is that it will occupy a shop space within the town, and will employ a programmer to organise talks and events, enabling the community to submit ideas and engage with the project in different ways. Ultimately the project aims to communicate and engage with people to improve the town centre which seems like an excellent start to increasing footfall, choice and atmosphere.’ Councillor Parton stated that residents were relying on the Council to provide a strong and vibrant town centre and through the Arts Grant the Council had the opportunity to use the considerable pool of artistic and creative talent to drive the town centre forward. In response, Councillor Hampson stated that it was a good scheme; however, it could be better supported if the originators of the scheme spoke to the Council and it would be helpful if those comments could be passed through to them.

37


76.21 Councillor Parton – Crime Statistics Councillor Parton had given notice under Full Council Procedures

9.9(a) of the following question: ‘Please would the Lead Member outline what measures are taken to

ascertain what and if there is a discrepancy between reported and actual crime in Charnwood?’


‘Anecdotal evidence suggests that for the vast majority of crimes, there is little discrepancy between reported and actual crime in Charnwood. However, there are certain crime types that the Council believes are under-reported and these include, in particular:

Incidents of Domestic Abuse.

Hate Related Incidents/Crimes.

Theft from Motor Vehicle (if the vehicle has been left insecure by the owner).

Low level incidents of damage (graffiti). In relation to the above crime types, the Community Safety Team, work very closely with partners to raise awareness of the importance of reporting. There are many factors which influence the under-reporting of these crime types but officers work proactively to support victims, through referral to support agencies and to encourage them to come forward. A significant amount of work has been done to raise awareness of crime prevention and the importance of reporting and local community groups have participated in the delivery of local awareness raising campaigns. Victims often mistakenly perceive that there is little point in reporting some incidents as they believe that the likelihood of them being detected is small. However, officers continue to encourage members of the public to report all incidents, making them aware of the importance of enabling us to map incidents and to gather intelligence that may lead to convictions.’ Councillor Parton stated that he was concerned that news that reported crime had been falling had been interpreted to mean that crime overall had been decreasing. Over the past six weeks he had visited over 1200 residents in Southfields Ward to deliver anti-burglary advice cards which had been well received and there was widespread

38


concern regarding burglary related crimes in Loughborough. There were numerous accounts of crimes not being reported because residents did not feel that any action would be taken. He commended the Lead Member for her work in this area and knew that she shared his concerns that residents needed to be encouraged more by the Police to report crimes. In response, Councillor Bokor stated that she agreed that residents should report crime. The anecdotal evidence suggested that for the vast majority of crimes there was little discrepancy between reported and actual crime figures. Unfortunately some types of crime, often involving domestic abuse and hate related incidents were under reported and she, the Police and Council officers were working to try and ensure that those crimes were reported.

76.22 Councillor Grimley – Housing Benefit Payments Councillor Grimley had given notice under Full Council Procedures

9.9(a) of the following question: ‘Can the Lead Member advise the amount of support in monetary

terms paid out in Housing Benefit for the year ending 31st March 2014 and what proportion of the total rental income this formed?’


‘The total rental income for Charnwood properties for 2013/14 was £20,809,426.09. The total net Housing Benefit figure paid out for the same period was £12,249,081, which equates to 58.86%.’ Councillor Grimley asked the Lead Member if a strong local and national economy and sound Council finances enabled the Council to offer help to the most needy in the Borough and assist the Council in its objectives of assisting all of our residents and helping the Borough to grow and prosper? In response, Councillor Bokor stated there was evidence to confirm that the strong financial position of the Council had contributed to it being able to assist the most vulnerable in the Borough. The Council had assisted over 11,000 residents with rent, of which 3,500 were Council tenants, paid over £32 million in Housing Benefit and £150,000 in discretionary housing payments.

39


77. POSITION STATEMENTS A Progress in developing our partnership with Clockwise Credit Union –

requested by the Labour Group

The Labour Group has requested a position statement on the following subject. ‘It is almost three years to the day that this Council debated a Labour motion seeking closer ties with Clockwise Credit Union to help significantly grow its customer base, expand its opening times and to provide a strong alternative to loan sharks and payday lenders. The debate that followed was perhaps the finest of this term and a united Council supported the motion as a means of spreading financial awareness, putting a stop to loan sharks and providing practical assistance and support to our residents in dealing with the oncoming welfare reforms. Could the Leader update the Council on progress over those three years and state how many residents are being supported in 2015 as compared with 2012.’ The Lead Member for Neighbourhood Services and Revenues and Benefits and Customer Services, Councillor Bokor has produced the following position statement: ‘The Cabinet, at its meeting on 12th February 2015 received a report from the Scrutiny Management Board which included an update on the progress of work with Clockwise Credit Union in Charnwood. The position statement below is taken from this report along with additional information detailing other initiatives being developed to deter loan sharks and to provide budgeting and debt advice to residents. Clockwise Credit Union Provision in Charnwood Clockwise Credit Union has the Common Bond for Leicestershire and Rutland and are therefore the only available credit union services provider that are able develop and expand credit union services in Charnwood. Since Cabinet approval in February 2013, numerous meetings and discussions have been held with Clockwise with regard to expanding credit union services within the Borough. Due to capacity issues and the impact of the National Credit Union Expansion tender that Clockwise are involved in with the Association of British Credit Unions Limited (ABCUL), Clockwise took longer than anticipated to submit a Business Plan proposal.

40


At a meeting in April 2014 it was agreed that Clockwise should submit a Business Plan proposal focusing on activities for an initial one year agreement, with a view to presenting a more detailed two year business proposition, early in 2015. It should be noted that the reason for the delay and initial one year agreement was that Clockwise had been working through the implications of the ABCUL Credit Union Expansion Project (CUEP) Tender. In addition, they had also been revisiting their own delivery model as an organisation. Due to the complexities of both of these issues there was a significant impact on Clockwise’s ability and capacity to respond. An initial one year Business Plan was finally agreed to start on 1st June 2014. The aim of the Business Plan was to improve access to a credible and affordable alternative to savings and loans for all Charnwood residents. The Business Goals set were:

Improve access to services in the Loughborough area by adding an extra access point, increasing visibility, increasing advertising and raising awareness of products and services with key stakeholders.

Challenge usury lenders in Loughborough and support changes brought about by welfare reform by actively marketing credit union products in direct competition to the usury lenders.

To provide Loughborough with a co-operative alternative to high street banks.

To provide a robust business proposal which will steer the second phase of the Project (year 2/3) and expand further credit union services.

Progress to Date

Clockwise relocated their weekly access point to Loughborough Library in January 2015.

Clockwise have agreed to support the Community Shop once it has opened. Directors of Clockwise are talking to Community Shop along with other partners to agree sessions to support the Community Shop members.

Clockwise are now holding a monthly session at the newly launched Hub in Syston.

A communications plan has been developed with adverts (including Charnwood News) and a mailing campaign that is currently taking place.

Clockwise have presented to partners at several partner events and have run a series of workshops for officers from the Council and external partner organisations.

41


Clockwise ran an awareness roadshow at the Council to encourage Council employees to open their own Clockwise accounts.

Clockwise have met with managers from Council services to improve the partnership working and ensure increased knowledge by officers this has resulted in attendance at Housing and Customer Service Team Meetings.

Products and Services Clockwise offer fair finance to customers through its banking, savings and loan services. Clockwise are currently reviewing their products and services. This includes the decision to stop the current cash service offered at the Baptist Church. Demand for this service has fallen with more people using payment cards. In recent months only around 20% of all new accounts were set up from people visiting the session the rest were done via online services and it is these services that Clockwise continue to promote and develop. During the last 12 months Clockwise have spent time ensuring that they offer a competitive service to their clients. Considerable development in their loan application service means that they can now offer clients an immediate response to loan applications, making them more in line and in a position to compete directly with lenders such as WONGA. They have specific banking services including Budget banking which works by taking a client’s money and dividing into agreed pots that cannot accidentally be spent before the bill is due. Considerable time and investment has had to be made in back office systems and platforms to enable them to offer competitive products and services. Housing Financial Inclusion Strategy Clockwise have continued to work directly with the Council’s housing teams. In November 2014, the Council’s Landlord Service, presented their Financial Inclusion Strategy to Policy Scrutiny Group. The Council’s Landlord Service is developing its offer around financial inclusion. This includes extending the range of information available to tenants around affordable credit and the promotion of Clockwise Credit Union. In October 2014 Income Officers in the Landlord Service attended training on products and services offered by Clockwise. Leaflets and information are available via the dedicated Financial Inclusion Officer,

42


and the tenant newsletter, ‘Your Homes Matter’, has carried information around Clockwise in its summer and autumn 2014 editions. Work will continue through the Council’s Welfare Reform Action Group to identify opportunities for further joint working with Clockwise to ensure that residents are equipped in preparation for Universal Credit. Additional Partner Services In addition to the services provided by Clockwise the Council is involved in a number of other initiatives to help assist and support residents. Officers are currently working with Trading Standards on a targeted Loan Shark campaign, which will be launched in March 2015 and will include training sessions for all relevant Council staff. The Council’s Strategic Partners including CAB provide budgeting and financial advice and the Council’s Specialist Debt and Money Advice Grant has provided increased services to a wide range of customers through organisations such as CAB, HREC and PACE. Support has also been given to the Charnwood Connect Project of which the Council is a partner. Clockwise Outputs to date

Membership has increased by 48% from 295 members in December 2012 to 615 in January 2015.

Overall Loan Balance has increased by 31% from November 2013 to January 2015.

Overall Savings Balance has increased by 32% from November 2013 to January 2015.

Way Forward Officers continue to work with Clockwise to expand credit union services further in the Borough. Clockwise are scheduled to produce a Business Plan to cover 2015/16 and 2016/17 by the end of June 2015 that builds on the work already delivered and sets out Clockwise’s model for service delivery going forward.’ The Lead Member for Neighbourhood Services and Revenues and Benefits and Customer Services introduced the position statement and the following issues were raised by Councillors:

43


(i) Reference was made to the debate in February 2012 when the motion for greater collaboration with Clockwise was supported by all members with real enthusiasm. The progress made was very disappointing and it would be interesting to know what political leadership has been given to the initiative and what commitment could be given that the Council would improve the impact that the scheme could have. Would the Lead Member advise members if the workings of Clockwise have been embedded into the Council’s Customer Services and Housing Teams. What co-ordination of partners had occurred to ensure consistency and had any consideration been given to the use of discretionary funds to cover any joining fees.

(ii) There was now a proliferation of high interest money lenders

causing great distress to many people and the problem was being ignored. It was disappointing that further progress had not been made and it was hoped that steps would be taken to address the problem.

(iii) It was important that attention was focused on deprived areas to

ensure that the most vulnerable were offered support. (iv) The issue was considered at the last Cabinet meeting and all

members shared the ambition that Clockwise would be successful.

(v) The response outlined the problems that have been faced,

many of which were out of the Council’s control. (vi) Credit Union schemes should be universally used and in that

way they would become embedded in society. (vii) Could the Council look into the possibility of including a

voluntary payment when rental payments and Council Tax payments were made.

The Lead Member for Neighbourhood Services and Revenues and Benefits and Customer Services stated that she agreed with all the comments and suggestions raised and asked Councillor Sharp to forward the suggestions of the Labour Group to her and she would work with officers to ensure that they were implemented. The Council was currently working with Trading Standards at a targeted ‘Loan Shark’ campaign which would be launched in March 2015. All affected staff would receive relevant training. If the pilot scheme in Syston proved successful it was hoped that the scheme would be rolled out to other areas in the Borough. The Council would continue to work with Clockwise to expand its service. It was also producing a Business

44


Plan for 2015/16 and 2016/17 which would be completed by June 2015. Councillors Bradshaw and Max Hunt and Alderman Hurst left the meeting.

78. BUSINESS RESERVED TO COUNCIL

To consider the following matters reserved to Council in accordance with Part 5 of the Constitution. 78.1 2015/16 COUNCIL TAX AND NATIONAL NON-DOMESTIC RATES

BASE, SPECIAL EXPENSES AND 2015/16 GENERAL FUND AND HRA REVENUE BUDGETS

A report of the Cabinet, setting out the proposed General Fund and HRA Revenue Budgets for 2015/16 along with the proposed Council Tax levy, and the 2015/16 Original Budget for the Housing Revenue Account together with proposals to increase rent and service charges (item 8.1 on the agenda filed with these minutes).

Following Leicestershire County Council setting its precept on 18th February 2015, the full Council Tax Recommendations, which the Council had to consider in order to set a Council Tax Levy and General Fund and HRA Revenue Budgets and agree a Council Tax and National Non-domestic Rates (NNDR) base for 2015/16, was circulated (item 8.1 supplementary report filed with these minutes). Councillors were reminded that it was a legal requirement that all votes taken on this item, including votes on amendments must be recorded votes. It was proposed by Councillor Barkley and seconded by Councillor Slater 1. that the expenses incurred by the Council in performing in

Loughborough a function performed elsewhere in its area by a parish council or the chairman of a parish meeting be treated as special expenses for the purposes of Section 35 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, to the extent provided in minute 72 (C) 1 of Council February 2008;

2. that

(a) the Original Budget for 2015/16 be £19,806,048; (b) the base Council Tax be set at £102.62 at Band D; and (c) the Loughborough Special Rate be set at £73.51;

45


3. that the amounts below be approved as the Council tax base for 2015/16:

(a) for the whole Council area as 52,291.3 [Item T in the

formula in Section 31B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended (the "Act")]; and

(b) for dwellings in those parts of its area to which a Parish

precept relates: Part of the Council’s area:

Parish etc

Council Tax Base 2015/16

Anstey 2,181.4

Barkby / Barkby Thorpe 156.0

Barrow-upon-Soar 2,211.6

Beeby 35.3

Birstall 4,271.8

Burton-on-the-Wolds, Cotes, & Prestwold 532.9

Cossington 213.6

East Goscote 865.5

Hathern 819.3

Hoton 140.8

Mountsorrel 2,652.2

Newtown Linford 513.5

Queniborough 932.3

Quorndon 2,268.5

Ratcliffe-on-the-Wreake 89.8

Rearsby 477.9

Rothley 1,824.8

Seagrave 262.4

Shepshed 4,313.0

Sileby 2,430.0

South Croxton 128.6

Swithland 155.6

Syston 4,060.6

Thrussington 252.4

Thurcaston & Cropston 937.4

Thurmaston 2,662.7

Ulverscroft 63.3

46


Walton-on-the-Wolds 127.1

Wanlip 84.6

Woodhouse 945.0

Wymeswold 565.8

Loughborough (Special Expenses) 15,115.6

being the amounts calculated by the Council, in accordance with Regulation 6 of the regulations, as the amounts of its council tax base for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which one or more special items relate;

4. that the following amounts be calculated for the year 2015/16 in

accordance with Sections 31 to 36 of the Act:

a) the Council Tax requirement for the Council’s own purposes for 2015/16 (excluding Parish precepts) is £6,477,281;

b) £66,937,454 being the aggregate of the amounts which the

Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A (2) of the Act taking into account all precepts issued to it by Parish Councils;

c) £57,669,268 being the aggregate of the amounts which the

Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A (3) of the Act;

d) £9,268,186 being the amount by which the aggregate at 4(b)

above exceeds the aggregate at 4(c) above, calculated by the Council in accordance with Section 31A(4) of the Act as its Council Tax requirement for the year. (Item R in the formula in Section 31B of the Act);

e) £177.24 being the amount at 4(d) above (Item R), all divided by

Item T (3(a) above), calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 31B of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year (including Parish precepts);

f) £3,902,053 being the aggregate amount of all special items

(Parish precepts) referred to in Section 34(1) of the Act (as per the attached Appendix A);

g) £102.62 being the amount at 4(d) above less the result given by

dividing the amount at 4(f) above by Item T (3(a) above), calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 34(2) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year for

47


dwellings in those parts of its area to which no Parish precept relates;

h) part of the Council’s Area;

being the amounts given by adding to the amount at 4(g) above the amounts of the special item or items relating to dwellings in those parts of the Council’s area mentioned above divided in each case by the amount at 3(b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with section 34(3) of the act, as the basic amounts of its Council Tax for year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which one or more special items relate; i) part of the Council’s area

Parish, etc District Band D

Charge

Anstey 202.22

Barkby and Barkby Thorpe 152.30

Barrow-upon-Soar 199.19

Beeby 102.62

Birstall 187.43 Burton-on-the-Wolds / Cotes / Prestwold 151.93

Cossington 158.80

East Goscote 165.09

Hathern 149.00

Hoton 175.92

Mountsorrel 169.46


Queniborough 145.71

Quorndon 186.54


Rearsby 140.30

Rothley 157.08

Seagrave 171.22

Shepshed 170.67

Sileby 168.56

South Croxton 172.18

Swithland 118.69

Syston 192.62

Thrussington 126.39


Thurmaston 214.57

Ulverscroft 102.62


Wanlip 126.26

Woodhouse 178.13

Wymeswold 140.12

Loughborough Special Expense Area 176.13

48


Parish/Town Valuation Bands

A B C D E F G H

£ £ £ £ £ £ £ £

Anstey 134.81 157.29 179.75 202.22 247.15 292.10 337.03 404.44 Barkby and Barkby Thorpe 101.53 118.46 135.38 152.30 186.14 219.99 253.83 304.60

Barrow-upon-Soar 132.79 154.93 177.06 199.19 243.45 287.72 331.98 398.38

Beeby 68.41 79.82 91.22 102.62 125.42 148.23 171.03 205.24

Birstall 124.95 145.78 166.61 187.43 229.08 270.73 312.38 374.86

Burton-on-the-Wolds / Cotes / Prestwold 101.28 118.17 135.05 151.93 185.69 219.46 253.21 303.86

Cossington 105.86 123.52 141.16 158.80 194.08 229.38 264.66 317.60

East Goscote 110.06 128.41 146.75 165.09 201.77 238.46 275.15 330.18

Hathern 99.33 115.89 132.45 149.00 182.11 215.22 248.33 298.00

Hoton 117.28 136.83 156.38 175.92 215.01 254.11 293.20 351.84

Mountsorrel 112.97 131.81 150.63 169.46 207.11 244.78 282.43 338.92

Newtown Linford 117.44 137.03 156.60 176.17 215.31 254.47 293.61 352.34

Queniborough 97.14 113.33 129.52 145.71 178.09 210.47 242.85 291.42

Quorndon 124.36 145.09 165.82 186.54 227.99 269.45 310.90 373.08

Ratcliffe-on-the-Wreake 83.26 97.14 111.02 124.89 152.64 180.40 208.15 249.78

Rearsby 93.53 109.13 124.71 140.30 171.47 202.66 233.83 280.60

Rothley 104.72 122.18 139.63 157.08 191.98 226.89 261.80 314.16

Seagrave 114.14 133.18 152.20 171.22 209.26 247.32 285.36 342.44

Shepshed 113.78 132.75 151.71 170.67 208.59 246.52 284.45 341.34

Sileby 112.37 131.11 149.83 168.56 206.01 243.48 280.93 337.12

South Croxton 114.78 133.92 153.05 172.18 210.44 248.71 286.96 344.36

Swithland 79.12 92.32 105.50 118.69 145.06 171.44 197.81 237.38

Syston 128.41 149.82 171.22 192.62 235.42 278.23 321.03 385.24

Thrussington 84.26 98.31 112.35 126.39 154.47 182.56 210.65 252.78

Thurcaston & Cropston 92.30 107.70 123.08 138.46 169.22 200.00 230.76 276.92

Thurmaston 143.04 166.89 190.73 214.57 262.25 309.94 357.61 429.14

Ulverscroft 68.41 79.82 91.22 102.62 125.42 148.23 171.03 205.24

Walton-on-the-Wolds 86.72 101.18 115.63 130.08 158.98 187.89 216.80 260.16

Wanlip 84.17 98.21 112.23 126.26 154.31 182.38 210.43 252.52

Woodhouse 118.75 138.55 158.34 178.13 217.71 257.30 296.88 356.26

Wymeswold 93.41 108.99 124.55 140.12 171.25 202.40 233.53 280.24

Loughborough Special Expense Area 117.42 136.99 156.56 176.13 215.27 254.41 293.55 352.26

being the amounts given by multiplying the amounts at 4(h) above by the number which, in the proportion set out in Section 5(1) of the Act, is applicable to dwellings listed in a particular valuation band divided by the number which in that proportion is applicable to dwellings listed in the valuation band D, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 36(1) of the Act, as the amounts to be

49


taken into account for the year in respect of categories of dwellings listed in different valuation bands;

5. to note that the County Council, the Police & Crime Commissioner for

Leicestershire (‘PCCL’) and the Combined Fire Authority have issued precepts to the Council in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 for each category of dwellings in the Council’s area as indicated in the table below:

REQUIREMENTS (TO 2 DECIMAL PLACES)

BAND

A BAND

B BAND

C BAND

D BAND

E BAND

F BAND

G BAND

H

LEICS COUNTY COUNCIL 722.77 843.23 963.69 1084.15 1325.08 1566.00 1806.92 2168.30

COMBINED FIRE AUTHORITY 40.29 47.00 53.72 60.43 73.86 87.29 100.72 120.86

POLICE & CRIME COMMISSIONER

120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 219.99 259.99 299.99 360.00

6. that the Council, in accordance with Sections 30 and 36 of the Local

Government Finance Act 1992, hereby sets the aggregate amounts shown in the tables below as the amounts of Council Tax for 2015/16 for each part of its area and for each of the categories of dwellings:

BAND A BAND

B BAND

C BAND

D BAND

E BAND

F BAND

G BAND

H

6/9 7/9 8/9 1 11/9 13/9 15/9 18/9

ANSTEY 1017.87 1187.52 1357.16 1526.80 1866.08 2205.38 2544.66 3053.60

BARKBY / BARKBY THORPE

984.59 1148.69 1312.79 1476.88 1805.07 2133.27 2461.46 2953.76

BARROW-UPON-SOAR

1015.85 1185.16 1354.47 1523.77 1862.38 2201.00 2539.61 3047.54

BEEBY 951.47 1110.05 1268.63 1427.20 1744.35 2061.51 2378.66 2854.40

BIRSTALL 1008.01 1176.01 1344.02 1512.01 1848.01 2184.01 2520.01 3024.02

BURTON-ON-THE-WOLDS, COTES & PRESTWOLD

984.34 1148.40 1312.46 1476.51 1804.62 2132.74 2460.84 2953.02

COSSINGTON 988.92 1153.75 1318.57 1483.38 1813.01 2142.66 2472.29 2966.76

EAST GOSCOTE 993.12 1158.64 1324.16 1489.67 1820.70 2151.74 2482.78 2979.34

HATHERN 982.39 1146.12 1309.86 1473.58 1801.04 2128.50 2455.96 2947.16

HOTON 1000.34 1167.06 1333.79 1500.50 1833.94 2167.39 2500.83 3001.00

MOUNTSORREL 996.03 1162.04 1328.04 1494.04 1826.04 2158.06 2490.06 2988.08

NEWTOWN LINFORD

1000.50 1167.26 1334.01 1500.75 1834.24 2167.75 2501.24 3001.50

QUENIBOROUGH 980.20 1143.56 1306.93 1470.29 1797.02 2123.75 2450.48 2940.58

QUORNDON 1007.42 1175.32 1343.23 1511.12 1846.92 2182.73 2518.53 3022.24

50


BAND

A BAND

B BAND

C BAND

D BAND

E BAND

F BAND

G BAND

H

6/9 7/9 8/9 1 11/9 13/9 15/9 18/9

RATCLIFFE-ON-THE-WREAKE

966.32 1127.37 1288.43 1449.47 1771.57 2093.68 2415.78 2898.94

REARSBY 976.59 1139.36 1302.12 1464.88 1790.40 2115.94 2441.46 2929.76

ROTHLEY 987.78 1152.41 1317.04 1481.66 1810.91 2140.17 2469.43 2963.32

SEAGRAVE 997.20 1163.41 1329.61 1495.80 1828.19 2160.60 2492.99 2991.60

SHEPSHED 996.84 1162.98 1329.12 1495.25 1827.52 2159.80 2492.08 2990.50

SILEBY 995.43 1161.34 1327.24 1493.14 1824.94 2156.76 2488.56 2986.28

SOUTH CROXTON

997.84 1164.15 1330.46 1496.76 1829.37 2161.99 2494.59 2993.52

SWITHLAND 962.18 1122.55 1282.91 1443.27 1763.99 2084.72 2405.44 2886.54

SYSTON 1011.47 1180.05 1348.63 1517.20 1854.35 2191.51 2528.66 3034.40

THRUSSINGTON 967.32 1128.54 1289.76 1450.97 1773.40 2095.84 2418.28 2901.94

THURCASTON & CROPSTON

975.36 1137.93 1300.49 1463.04 1788.15 2113.28 2438.39 2926.08

THURMASTON 1026.10 1197.12 1368.14 1539.15 1881.18 2223.22 2565.24 3078.30

ULVERSCROFT 951.47 1110.05 1268.63 1427.20 1744.35 2061.51 2378.66 2854.40

WALTON-ON-THE-WOLDS

969.78 1131.41 1293.04 1454.66 1777.91 2101.17 2424.43 2909.32

WANLIP 967.23 1128.44 1289.64 1450.84 1773.24 2095.66 2418.06 2901.68

WOODHOUSE 1001.81 1168.78 1335.75 1502.71 1836.64 2170.58 2504.51 3005.42

WYMESWOLD 976.47 1139.22 1301.96 1464.70 1790.18 2115.68 2441.16 2929.40

LOUGHBOROUGH (SPECIAL EXPENSES)

1000.48 1167.22 1333.97 1500.71 1834.20 2167.69 2501.18 3001.42

7. that the Original Housing Revenue Account Budget for 2015/16 as set

out in Appendix 5 of the Head of Finance & Property Services’ report of the 2015/16 General Fund and HRA Revenue Budgets be approved;

8. that the increases to weekly rents be approved in line with the

Department of Communities and Local Government guidance on rents; 9. that the service charges be approved in accordance with the

Communities and Local Government guidance on rents; 10. that the increases to shop rents by the Consumer Price Index (‘CPI’),

being the applicable rate of 1.26% plus 1%, subject to individual guidance by the District Valuer, be approved;

11. that garage rents are increased by 50 pence a week (48 week

collection); 12. that the Leasehold Management and Administration charge be

increased by 2.0% to £102.00 per annum;

51


13. that it be determined that the basic amount of Council Tax for 2015/16 is not excessive according to the principles set out by the Secretary of State;

14. that the NNDR tax base for 2015/16 will be £43,167,062;

15. that the following items be added to the Loughborough Special Expenses: (a) The partial costs of a post graduate student to carry out work on

Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs) for up to three years; (b) 75% of the costs of a new Voluntary & Community Sector

Development Officer for one year; (c) The costs of opening Biggin Street, Loughborough, toilets on a

Friday for one year. Reasons

1. To set the definition of the Loughborough Special Expenses in

accordance with Section 35 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

2. To ensure that the necessary finance would be available to carry out services in 2015/16 and to set the Council Tax and Loughborough Special Expenses in accordance with legal and statutory requirements.

3. To set the Council’s 2015/16 Council Tax Base in accordance with the

regulations made under Section 31B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

4-6. To set a Council Tax in accordance with legal and statutory

requirements. 7 To ensure sufficient funding for the Housing Revenue Account in

2015/16. 8. To ensure sufficient resources would be made available to the Housing

Revenue Account in 2015/16.

9. To ensure the correct alignment of costs and service charges for tenants in accordance with best practice.

10. To ensure that Housing Revenue Account shop rents are in line with

guidance provided by the District Valuer. 11. To ensure that garage rents reflect current market conditions.

12. That there would be sufficient recovery of the costs associated with

operating the leasehold flat and shop services.

52


13. To comply with the requirements of section 52ZB of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

14. To set the Council’s NNDR tax base in accordance with statutory

requirements.

15. To enable items to be added to the Loughborough Special Expenses in order to: (a) Carry out a study into HMOs in Loughborough; (b) Provide assistance to third sector bodies to enable them to be

more self sufficient and sustainable; (c) Open the Biggin Street, Loughborough, toilets on a Friday on a

trial basis for one year. An amendment was proposed by Councillor Sharp and seconded by Councillor Stephen Smith as follows: ‘In order to seek additional investment in the Borough I move that the following items are added to the 2015/16 General Fund budget:

Introduce free Sunday parking in the Council’s car parks in Loughborough at a cost of £60,0001

Create an Empty Homes Officer post at a cost of £35,0002

Establish a Community Infrastructure Fund at a cost of £250,000.

I further move that this be funded by:

Eliminating Council Tax subsidies to empty homes, which would raise £90,000 (our share of £360,000 additional income raised)3

A 1.99% rise in Council Tax, which would raise £107,000 (net £36,000 in year one)4

A transfer from the Council’s reserves of £220,000.”

Note: A 1.99% increase would cost the typical Band C taxpayer £1.82, or slightly over 3p per week. This increase would deliver an additional income of £107,000 but would result in the loss of a Government grant of £71,000 in 2015/16 leaving a net increase in income available to the Council of £36,000. Before the amendment was debated, the Deputy Monitoring Officer advised councillors that the proposed amendment would remove the Council Tax

1 Costs provided by Head of Regulatory Services

2 Costs provided by former Head of Strategic and Private Sector Housing

3 Data provided by Head of Revenues, Benefits and Customer Services

4 Data provided by Head of Finance and Property Services

53


exemptions which were currently available for empty properties. It would therefore negatively affect the financial position of councillors who might otherwise have made use of those exemptions. Any councillor who owned or whose partner owned residential properties to let could have a disclosable pecuniary interest in the amendment if any of those properties currently benefitted from those exemptions, or might reasonably be expected to do so in the foreseeable future. Councillors were advised that if they were in that situation, they should declare an interest and leave the meeting during the debate and voting on the amendment. Councillors could then return to debate the substantive budget motion whether it has been amended or not. Councillors Bentley, Hampson, Harris, Miah, Morgan, Osborne, Ranson and Williams declared a pecuniary interest. Having declared an interest the councillors left the meeting during consideration of the amendment and took no part in the vote. For the motion – Councillors Draycott, Lennie, Maynard Smith, Newton, Poole, Sharp, M. Smith, S. Smith and Youell. Against the motion – Councillors Barkley, Bokor, Campsall, Capleton, Fryer, Gaskell, Grimley, Harper-Davies, J, Hunt, Jones, Jukes, Pacey, Parton, Poland, Seaton, Shepherd, Shergill, Slater, Smidowicz, Snartt, Vardy, and Wise. Abstaining – Councillors Radford, Stork and Sutherington. The amendment was defeated. Councillors Bentley, Hampson, Harris, Miah, Morgan, Osborne, Ranson and Williams returned to the meeting. The substantive motion, as set out in the Recommendations section of the Supplementary report of Cabinet, was put to the vote. For the motion – Councillors Barkley, Bentley, Bokor, Campsall, Capleton, Fryer, Gaskell, Grimley, Hampson, Harper-Davies, J, Hunt, Jones, Jukes, Morgan, Osborne, Pacey, Parton, Poland, Radford, Ranson, Seaton, Shepherd, Shergill, Slater, Smidowicz, Snartt, Sutherington, Vardy and Wise. Against the motion – Councillors Draycott, Harris, Lennie, Maynard Smith, Miah, Newton, Poole, Sharp, M. Smith, S. Smith, Williams and Youell. Abstaining – Councillor Stork.

54


The motion was carried, 29 for, 12 against and 1 abstention, therefore it was RESOLVED 1. that the expenses incurred by the Council in performing in

Loughborough a function performed elsewhere in its area by a parish council or the chairman of a parish meeting be treated as special expenses for the purposes of Section 35 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, to the extent provided in minute 72 (C) 1 of Council February 2008;

2. that

(a) the Original Budget for 2015/16 be £19,806,048; (b) the base Council Tax be set at £102.62 at Band D, and (c) the Loughborough Special Rate be set at £73.51;

3. that the amounts below be approved as the Council tax base for

2015/16:

(a) for the whole Council area as 52,291.3 [Item T in the formula in Section 31B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended (the "Act")]; and

(b) for dwellings in those parts of its area to which a Parish precept

relates:

Part of the Council's area

Parish etc

Council Tax Base 2015/16

Anstey 2,181.4

Barkby / Barkby Thorpe 156.0

Barrow-upon-Soar 2,211.6

Beeby 35.3

Birstall 4,271.8

Burton-on-the-Wolds, Cotes, & Prestwold 532.9

Cossington 213.6

East Goscote 865.5

Hathern 819.3

Hoton 140.8

Mountsorrel 2,652.2


Queniborough 932.3

55


Quorndon 2,268.5


Rearsby 477.9

Rothley 1,824.8

Seagrave 262.4

Shepshed 4,313.0

Sileby 2,430.0

South Croxton 128.6

Swithland 155.6

Syston 4,060.6

Thrussington 252.4


Thurmaston 2,662.7

Ulverscroft 63.3


Wanlip 84.6

Woodhouse 945.0

Wymeswold 565.8

Loughborough (Special Expenses) 15,115.6

being the amounts calculated by the Council, in accordance with Regulation 6 of the regulations, as the amounts of its council tax base for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which one or more special items relate;

4. that the following amounts be calculated for the year 2015/16 in

accordance with Sections 31 to 36 of the Act:

a) The Council Tax requirement for the Council’s own purposes for 2015/16 (excluding Parish precepts) is £6,477,281;

b) £66,937,454 being the aggregate of the amounts which the

Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A (2) of the Act taking into account all precepts issued to it by Parish Councils;

c) £57,669,268 being the aggregate of the amounts which the

Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A (3) of the Act;

d) £9,268,186 being the amount by which the aggregate at 4(b)

above exceeds the aggregate at 4(c) above, calculated by the

56


Council in accordance with Section 31A(4) of the Act as its Council Tax requirement for the year. (Item R in the formula in Section 31B of the Act);

e) £177.24 being the amount at 4(d) above (Item R), all divided by

Item T (3(a) above), calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 31B of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year (including Parish precepts);

f) £3,902,053 being the aggregate amount of all special items

(Parish precepts) referred to in Section 34(1) of the Act (as per the attached Appendix A);

g) £102.62 being the amount at 4(d) above less the result given by

dividing the amount at 4(f) above by Item T (3(a) above), calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 34(2) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which no Parish precept relates;

h) part of the Council’s Area:

Parish, etc District Band D

Charge

Anstey 202.22

Barkby and Barkby Thorpe 152.30

Barrow-upon-Soar 199.19

Beeby 102.62

Birstall 187.43

57


being the amounts given by adding to the amount at 4(g) above the amounts of the special item or items relating to dwellings in those parts of the Council’s area mentioned above divided in each case by the amount at 3(b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with section 34(3) of the act, as the basic amounts of its Council Tax for year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which one or more special items relate;

Parish, etc continued District Band D

Charge Burton-on-the-Wolds / Cotes / Prestwold 151.93

Cossington 158.80

East Goscote 165.09

Hathern 149.00

Hoton 175.92

Mountsorrel 169.46


Queniborough 145.71

Quorndon 186.54


Rearsby 140.30

Rothley 157.08

Seagrave 171.22

Shepshed 170.67

Sileby 168.56

South Croxton 172.18

Swithland 118.69

Syston 192.62

Thrussington 126.39


Thurmaston 214.57

Ulverscroft 102.62


Wanlip 126.26

Woodhouse 178.13

Wymeswold 140.12

Loughborough Special Expense Area 176.13

58


i) part of the Council’s area:

Parish/Town Valuation Bands

A B C D E F G H

£ £ £ £ £ £ £ £

Anstey 134.81 157.29 179.75 202.22 247.15 292.10 337.03 404.44 Barkby and Barkby Thorpe 101.53 118.46 135.38 152.30 186.14 219.99 253.83 304.60

Barrow-upon-Soar 132.79 154.93 177.06 199.19 243.45 287.72 331.98 398.38

Beeby 68.41 79.82 91.22 102.62 125.42 148.23 171.03 205.24

Birstall 124.95 145.78 166.61 187.43 229.08 270.73 312.38 374.86

Burton-on-the-Wolds / Cotes / Prestwold 101.28 118.17 135.05 151.93 185.69 219.46 253.21 303.86

Cossington 105.86 123.52 141.16 158.80 194.08 229.38 264.66 317.60

East Goscote 110.06 128.41 146.75 165.09 201.77 238.46 275.15 330.18

Hathern 99.33 115.89 132.45 149.00 182.11 215.22 248.33 298.00

Hoton 117.28 136.83 156.38 175.92 215.01 254.11 293.20 351.84

Mountsorrel 112.97 131.81 150.63 169.46 207.11 244.78 282.43 338.92

Newtown Linford 117.44 137.03 156.60 176.17 215.31 254.47 293.61 352.34

Queniborough 97.14 113.33 129.52 145.71 178.09 210.47 242.85 291.42

Quorndon 124.36 145.09 165.82 186.54 227.99 269.45 310.90 373.08

Ratcliffe-on-the-Wreake 83.26 97.14 111.02 124.89 152.64 180.40 208.15 249.78

Rearsby 93.53 109.13 124.71 140.30 171.47 202.66 233.83 280.60

Rothley 104.72 122.18 139.63 157.08 191.98 226.89 261.80 314.16

Seagrave 114.14 133.18 152.20 171.22 209.26 247.32 285.36 342.44

Shepshed 113.78 132.75 151.71 170.67 208.59 246.52 284.45 341.34

Sileby 112.37 131.11 149.83 168.56 206.01 243.48 280.93 337.12

South Croxton 114.78 133.92 153.05 172.18 210.44 248.71 286.96 344.36

Swithland 79.12 92.32 105.50 118.69 145.06 171.44 197.81 237.38

Syston 128.41 149.82 171.22 192.62 235.42 278.23 321.03 385.24

Thrussington 84.26 98.31 112.35 126.39 154.47 182.56 210.65 252.78

Thurcaston & Cropston 92.30 107.70 123.08 138.46 169.22 200.00 230.76 276.92

Thurmaston 143.04 166.89 190.73 214.57 262.25 309.94 357.61 429.14

Ulverscroft 68.41 79.82 91.22 102.62 125.42 148.23 171.03 205.24

Walton-on-the-Wolds 86.72 101.18 115.63 130.08 158.98 187.89 216.80 260.16

Wanlip 84.17 98.21 112.23 126.26 154.31 182.38 210.43 252.52

Woodhouse 118.75 138.55 158.34 178.13 217.71 257.30 296.88 356.26

Wymeswold 93.41 108.99 124.55 140.12 171.25 202.40 233.53 280.24

Loughborough Special Expense Area 117.42 136.99 156.56 176.13 215.27 254.41 293.55 352.26

being the amounts given by multiplying the amounts at 4(h) above by the number which, in the proportion set out in Section 5(1) of the Act, is applicable to dwellings listed in a particular valuation band divided by the number which in that proportion is applicable to

59


dwellings listed in the valuation band D, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 36(1) of the Act, as the amounts to be taken into account for the year in respect of categories of dwellings listed in different valuation bands;

5. to note that the County Council, the Police & Crime Commissioner for

Leicestershire (‘PCCL’) and the Combined Fire Authority have issued precepts to the Council in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 for each category of dwellings in the Council’s area as indicated in the table below:

REQUIREMENTS (TO 2 DECIMAL PLACES)

BAND

A BAND

B BAND

C BAND

D BAND

E BAND

F BAND

G BAND

H

LEICS COUNTY COUNCIL 722.77 843.23 963.69 1084.15 1325.08 1566.00 1806.92 2168.30

COMBINED FIRE AUTHORITY 40.29 47.00 53.72 60.43 73.86 87.29 100.72 120.86

POLICE & CRIME COMMISSIONER

120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 219.99 259.99 299.99 360.00

6. that the Council, in accordance with Sections 30 and 36 of the Local

Government Finance Act 1992, hereby sets the aggregate amounts shown in the tables below as the amounts of Council Tax for 2015/16 for each part of its area and for each of the categories of dwellings:

BAND

A BAND

B BAND

C BAND

D BAND

E BAND

F BAND

G BAND

H

6/9 7/9 8/9 1 11/9 13/9 15/9 18/9

ANSTEY 1017.87 1187.52 1357.16 1526.80 1866.08 2205.38 2544.66 3053.60

BARKBY / BARKBY THORPE

984.59 1148.69 1312.79 1476.88 1805.07 2133.27 2461.46 2953.76

BARROW-UPON-SOAR

1015.85 1185.16 1354.47 1523.77 1862.38 2201.00 2539.61 3047.54

BEEBY 951.47 1110.05 1268.63 1427.20 1744.35 2061.51 2378.66 2854.40

BIRSTALL 1008.01 1176.01 1344.02 1512.01 1848.01 2184.01 2520.01 3024.02

BURTON-ON-THE-WOLDS, COTES & PRESTWOLD

984.34 1148.40 1312.46 1476.51 1804.62 2132.74 2460.84 2953.02

COSSINGTON 988.92 1153.75 1318.57 1483.38 1813.01 2142.66 2472.29 2966.76

EAST GOSCOTE 993.12 1158.64 1324.16 1489.67 1820.70 2151.74 2482.78 2979.34

HATHERN 982.39 1146.12 1309.86 1473.58 1801.04 2128.50 2455.96 2947.16

HOTON 1000.34 1167.06 1333.79 1500.50 1833.94 2167.39 2500.83 3001.00

MOUNTSORREL 996.03 1162.04 1328.04 1494.04 1826.04 2158.06 2490.06 2988.08

NEWTOWN LINFORD

1000.50 1167.26 1334.01 1500.75 1834.24 2167.75 2501.24 3001.50

QUENIBOROUGH 980.20 1143.56 1306.93 1470.29 1797.02 2123.75 2450.48 2940.58

QUORNDON 1007.42 1175.32 1343.23 1511.12 1846.92 2182.73 2518.53 3022.24

60


BAND

A BAND

B BAND

C BAND

D BAND

E BAND

F BAND

G BAND

H

6/9 7/9 8/9 1 11/9 13/9 15/9 18/9

RATCLIFFE-ON-THE-WREAKE

966.32 1127.37 1288.43 1449.47 1771.57 2093.68 2415.78 2898.94

REARSBY 976.59 1139.36 1302.12 1464.88 1790.40 2115.94 2441.46 2929.76

ROTHLEY 987.78 1152.41 1317.04 1481.66 1810.91 2140.17 2469.43 2963.32

SEAGRAVE 997.20 1163.41 1329.61 1495.80 1828.19 2160.60 2492.99 2991.60

SHEPSHED 996.84 1162.98 1329.12 1495.25 1827.52 2159.80 2492.08 2990.50

SILEBY 995.43 1161.34 1327.24 1493.14 1824.94 2156.76 2488.56 2986.28

SOUTH CROXTON

997.84 1164.15 1330.46 1496.76 1829.37 2161.99 2494.59 2993.52

SWITHLAND 962.18 1122.55 1282.91 1443.27 1763.99 2084.72 2405.44 2886.54

SYSTON 1011.47 1180.05 1348.63 1517.20 1854.35 2191.51 2528.66 3034.40

THRUSSINGTON 967.32 1128.54 1289.76 1450.97 1773.40 2095.84 2418.28 2901.94

THURCASTON & CROPSTON

975.36 1137.93 1300.49 1463.04 1788.15 2113.28 2438.39 2926.08

THURMASTON 1026.10 1197.12 1368.14 1539.15 1881.18 2223.22 2565.24 3078.30

ULVERSCROFT 951.47 1110.05 1268.63 1427.20 1744.35 2061.51 2378.66 2854.40

WALTON-ON-THE-WOLDS

969.78 1131.41 1293.04 1454.66 1777.91 2101.17 2424.43 2909.32

WANLIP 967.23 1128.44 1289.64 1450.84 1773.24 2095.66 2418.06 2901.68

WOODHOUSE 1001.81 1168.78 1335.75 1502.71 1836.64 2170.58 2504.51 3005.42

WYMESWOLD 976.47 1139.22 1301.96 1464.70 1790.18 2115.68 2441.16 2929.40

LOUGHBOROUGH (SPECIAL EXPENSES)

1000.48 1167.22 1333.97 1500.71 1834.20 2167.69 2501.18 3001.42

7. that the Original Housing Revenue Account Budget for 2015/16 as set

out in Appendix 5 of the Head of Finance & Property Services’ report of the 2015/16 General Fund and HRA Revenue Budgets be approved;

8. that the increases to weekly rents be approved in line with the

Department of Communities and Local Government guidance on rents; 9. that the service charges be approved in accordance with the

Communities and Local Government guidance on rents; 10. that the increases to shop rents by the Consumer Price Index (‘CPI’),

being the applicable rate of 1.26% plus 1%, subject to individual guidance by the District Valuer, be approved;

11. that garage rents are increased by 50 pence a week (48 week

collection); 12. that the Leasehold Management and Administration charge be

increased by 2.0% to £102.00 per annum;

61


13. that it be determined that the basic amount of Council Tax for 2015/16 is not excessive according to the principles set out by the Secretary of State;

14. that the NNDR tax base for 2015/16 will be £43,167,062;

15. that the following items be added to the Loughborough Special Expenses: (a) The partial costs of a post graduate student to carry out work on

Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs) for up to three years; (b) 75% of the costs of a new Voluntary & Community Sector

Development Officer for one year; (c) The costs of opening Biggin Street, Loughborough, toilets on a

Friday for one year. Reasons

1. To set the definition of the Loughborough Special Expenses in

accordance with Section 35 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

2. To ensure that the necessary finance would be available to carry out services in 2015/16 and to set the Council Tax and Loughborough Special Expenses in accordance with legal and statutory requirements.

3. To set the Council’s 2015/16 Council Tax Base in accordance with the

regulations made under Section 31B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

4-6. To set a Council Tax in accordance with legal and statutory

requirements. 7 To ensure sufficient funding for the Housing Revenue Account in

2015/16. 8. To ensure sufficient resources would be made available to the Housing

Revenue Account in 2015/16.

9. To ensure the correct alignment of costs and service charges for tenants in accordance with best practice.

10. To ensure that Housing Revenue Account shop rents are in line with

guidance provided by the District Valuer. 11. To ensure that garage rents reflect current market conditions.

12. That there would be sufficient recovery of the costs associated with

operating the leasehold flat and shop services.

62


13. To comply with the requirements of section 52ZB of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

14. To set the Council’s NNDR tax base in accordance with statutory

requirements.

15. To enable items to be added to the Loughborough Special Expenses in order to: (a) Carry out a study into HMOs in Loughborough; (b) Provide assistance to third sector bodies to enable them to be

more self sufficient and sustainable; (c) Open the Biggin Street, Loughborough, toilets on a Friday on a

trial basis for one year.

78.2 TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT, ANNUAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY AND MINIMUM REVENUE PROVISION STRATEGY 2015/16

A report of the Cabinet, setting out the Treasury Management Strategy Statement, Annual Investment Strategy and Minimum Revenue Provision Strategy (item 8.2 on the agenda filed with these minutes. It was proposed by Councillor Barkley and seconded by Councillor Hampson and RESOLVED 1. that the Treasury Management Strategy Statement, Annual

Investment Strategy and Minimum Revenue Provision Strategy, as shown as an appendix to the report of Cabinet, attached as an annex, be approved; and

2. that the Prudential and Treasury Indicators set out in sections 2

and 3 of the Strategy be approved. Reasons

1. To ensure that the Council’s governance and management

procedures for Treasury Management reflect best practice and comply with the CIPFA Treasury Management in the Public Services Code of Practice, Guidance Notes and Treasury Management Policy Statement.

2. To ensure that funding of capital expenditure is taken within the

totality of the Council’s financial position and that borrowing and investment is only carried out with proper regard to the Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities.

63

http://www.charnwood.gov.uk/files/papers/cnl_23_february_2015_item_082_treasury_management_statement_ais_and_mrp_strategy_for_2015_16/Cnl%2023%20February%202015%20Item%2008.2%20%20Treasury%20Management%20Statement.%20AIS%20and%20MRP%20Strategy%20for%202015-16.pdf




78.3 PAY POLICY STATEMENT 2015/16

A report of the Personnel Committee, recommending that the Pay Policy Statement for 2015/16 be approved and adopted (item 8.3 on the agenda filed with these minutes). It was proposed by Councillor Slater and seconded by Councillor Sharp and RESOLVED

1. that the Pay Policy Statement for 2015/16 be approved and adopted, as set out in the annex to the report considered by the Personnel Committee as an appendix;

2. that delegated authority be given to the Head of Strategic Support to amend the pay scale of the Chief Executive (Scale Point 90), set out in the Pay and Grading Structure contained within the Pay Policy Statement, should a pay award be agreed.

Reasons

1. To ensure that the Council meets its obligations under Section 38 of the Localism Act 2011.

2. To enable the Pay Policy Statement to be updated should a pay

award for the Chief Executive be agreed. 78.4 LICENSING FEES AND CHARGES – ESTABLISHMENT OF SUB-

COMMITTEE A report of the Licensing Committee, recommending that a Licensing Sub-committee is established to consider objections to proposed licensing fees and charges (item 8.4 on the agenda filed with these minutes). It was proposed by Councillor Pacey and seconded by Councillor Newton and RESOLVED that the roles of the Licensing Committee set out in the Council’s Constitution be amended to include a delegation to the Licensing Sub-committee to determine discretionary licensing fees where objections to the proposed fees have been made, and these have not been withdrawn and are not considered frivolous or vexatious by the Head of Regulatory Services, and to provide for objectors to speak at meetings of the Sub-committee, as outlined in the report considered by the Licensing Committee attached as an annex.

64

http://www.charnwood.gov.uk/files/papers/cnl_23_february_2015_item_083_pay_policy_statement_2015_16/Cnl%2023%20February%202015%20Item%2008.3%20Pay%20Policy%20Statement%202015-16.pdf


Reason

To set out a revised procedure for dealing with the setting of discretionary fees and charges for licensing functions.

78.5 LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE PROCEDURES A report of the Licensing Committee, recommending that a revised procedure for Licensing Sub-committee hearings be adopted (item 8.5 on the agenda filed with these minutes). It was proposed by Councillor Pacey and seconded by Councillor Radford and RESOLVED that the revised order of proceedings for Licensing Sub-committee hearings replace the current version in the Council’s Constitution, as outlined in the appendix of the report considered by the Licensing Committee attached as an annex.

Reason

To ensure that the proceedings for Sub-committee hearings are operating effectively.

78.6 ELECTION FEES AND EXPENSES 2015/16

A report of the Chief Executive, setting out scales of election fees payable to the Returning Officer for any Borough or Parish Council elections during 2015/16 (item 8.6 on the agenda filed with these minutes. It was proposed by Councillor Morgan and seconded by Councillor Slater and RESOLVED that the scales of election fees appended to this report be adopted for 2015/16 in relation to the Borough elections and any Parish Council elections taking place on 7th May 2015, and any other elections which may be required.

Reason

To ensure an approved scale of fees can be applied in respect of any Borough or Parish Council elections which take place during 2015/16.

79. CALL-IN REFERENCES

There were no call-in references from Scrutiny.

65

http://www.charnwood.gov.uk/files/papers/cnl_23_february_2015_item_085_licensing_sub_committee_procedures/Cnl%2023%20February%202015%20Item%2008.5%20Licensing%20Sub-committee%20Procedures.pdf

http://www.charnwood.gov.uk/files/papers/cnl_23_february_2015_item_086_election_fees_and_expenses_for_2015_16/Cnl%2023%20February%202015%20Item%2008.6%20Election%20Fees%20and%20Expenses%20for%202015-16.pdf


80. MINUTE REFERENCES There were no minute references.

81. URGENT EXECUTIVE DECISIONS EXEMPT FROM CALL-IN There were no urgent executive decisions exempt from call-in.

82. MOTIONS ON NOTICE No motions on notice had been submitted.

83. NOMINATION OF MAYOR ELECT FOR 2015/16

It was proposed by Councillor Slater and seconded by Councillor Sharp and UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that Councillor Capleton be nominated as Mayor Elect for the 2015/16 Council Year. Reason To ensure that a nomination was made for Mayor of the Borough for 2015/16. Councillor Capleton thanked the Council for the nomination.

84. NOMINATION OF DEPUTY MAYOR ELECT FOR 2015/16 It was proposed by Councillor Sharp and seconded by Councillor Slater and UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that Councillor Marion Smith be nominated as Deputy Mayor Elect for the 2015/16 Council Year. Reason To ensure that a nomination was made for Deputy Mayor of the Borough for 2015/16. Councillor Marion Smith thanked the Council for the nomination.

85. TIMETABLE FOR COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND MEMBER TRAINING DAYS FOR 2015/16

A report of the Chief Executive, setting out a proposed timetable for Council and Committee Meetings for the next Council Year (2015/16) and designated Member Training Days, (item 15 on the agenda filed with these minutes).

It was proposed by Councillor Slater and seconded by Councillor Sharp and

66


RESOLVED 1. that the schedule of Council, Cabinet, Scrutiny and committee

meetings, for 2015/16, attached as appendix 1 to the report, be approved; and

2. that the proposed dates for member training days for 2015/16,

attached as appendix 2 to the report, be endorsed. Reasons 1. To ensure that a schedule of meetings for 2015/16 is agreed to enable

planning for the forthcoming Council Year.

2. To ensure that there is a timetable to enable planning for training and development days for councillors and co-opted members.

86. APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES

To consider a request from the Liberal Democrat Group to amend its nomination to fill the seat allocated to it on the Plans Committee (item 16 on the agenda filed with these minutes). It was proposed by Councillor Slater and seconded by Councillor Sutherington and RESOLVED that Councillor Simon Sansome be replaced as a member of the Plans Committee by Councillor Roy Campsall with immediate effect. Reason To ensure that the appointment is made on the basis of the wishes of the Liberal Democrat Group in accordance with the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990. Note These minutes are subject to confirmation as a correct record at the next ordinary meeting of Council, which is scheduled for Monday 20th April 2015.

67

Documents

CHARNWOOD BOROUGH COUNCIL€¦ · Rosebery St Peters Community Centre 1,490.00 Community Facilities ... Feasibility 3,500.00 5. Council – 23rd February 2015 Published – March