Agenda and minutes

Before the formal start of the meeting, Members paid tribute to the late Councillor John Hurst, and held a minutes silence in his memory.

The public open forum will commence at 2.00 p.m. and the following formal business of the Council will commence at 2.30 p.m. or whenever the public open forum ends, if earlier.

Question 1 – from Mrs M. Patrick, to the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Governance and Housing, Councillor Paul Carpenter:

Is it SKDC’s intention to get rid of the District Association and the Neighbourhood Groups?

Reply from Councillor Carpenter:

Not at all Mrs Patrick. Both fit firmly within the Housing Consultative Group structure.

Supplementary question from Mrs M. Patrick:

Why is the other district wide panel making the decision for tenants? It is like a secret society. Why are we not allowed names or area they represent? I don’t want tenants to represent me if I don’t know who they are. They have been selected not elected.

Reply from Councillor Carpenter:

Now I understand more as to why you are asking this question, I will investigate this for you.

Question 2 -from Mrs M. Patrick, to the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Governance and Housing, Councillor Paul Carpenter:

What pride is there in SKDC when it lets its tenants suffer?

Reply from Councillor Carpenter:

It would not be the intention of any council to let its tenants suffer, and it is certainly not the case with SKDC.

Supplementary question from Mrs M. Patrick:

Why has the council for four years let elderly tenants suffer bad placements at the hands of SKDC lettings?

Reply from Councillor Carpenter:

We are aware that there is an anti-social behaviour problem in the area you are referring to. Evidence is being gathered. We are aware of the situation, and rest assured our Anti-Social Behaviour team are working in conjunction with the police to combat the problems.

Question 3 -from Mr Klimes, to the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Governance and Housing, Councillor Paul Carpenter:

Regarding the Cabinet decision C054 – (i) Choice Based Lettings 4^th January 2010, would the proposed agreement with Peterborough City Council to provide the Choice Based Letting scheme on behalf of SKDC result in residents on the Peterborough City Council housing list being eligible to apply for housing from SKDC’s housing stock?

Reply from Councillor Carpenter:

Housing registers are nationally linked; anyone on a housing list can apply to any other authority. Choice Based Lettings will not change that. The difference is that people will have to bid for the properties; and they will still have to meet the required criteria.

Supplementary question from Mr Klimes:

I understand that in the past, people on the housing waiting list in one area are required to remove themselves from that waiting list if they want to apply to go on a different housing list elsewhere. Is this the case?

Reply from Councillor Carpenter:

If someone wanted to move, there would be little point in remaining on the original list. I actually have been bit of a mystery shopper recently, and rung around different authorities to see if they would accept me on their housing lists. I was told I would be welcome on each of them, providing I met the specified criteria.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Broughton, Channell, Martin-Mayhew, Moore, Russell, Stephens, Stokes and Thompson.

Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

Councillor Wootten declared a personal interest in agenda item 8 – Civil Parking Enforcement – due to him being a member of the Grantham East Neighbourhood Policing Panel, and also as a member of the National Association of Retired Police Officers.

                                                                                                            (Enclosure)

The minutes of the meeting held 29^th October 2009 were confirmed as a correct record.

                                                                                                            (Enclosure)

Circulated with the agenda was a list of the Chairman’s engagements for the period of 29^th October 2009 to 21^st January 2010. These were noted.

The Council to receive a presentation from the Chief Executive on aligning skills and resources to deliver priorities – the “Next Steps” approach.

(2.15pm – the Corporate Heads and Service Managers left the meeting).

Members received a presentation form the Chief Executive with regards to her plans for the future.

A programme called Next Steps was being developed to help facilitate change. The purpose of the next steps programme was to ensure that the Council adds capacity in key areas and to ensure that the skills and expertise is available to support staff. With input from managers and staff over the next few weeks, plans would be firmed up to shape SKDC to move forward together.

Members congratulated Mrs Agass on her presentation and commended her on the positive changes brought about since she had been in post.

A debate took place and a number of issues were raised by Members.Councillors took the view that adding skills in-house in order to progress forward could only be a good thing. Mention was made of the potential savings made by the next Steps approach. Mrs Agass confirmed that although the Council was always looking for efficiencies, these particular plans had an emphasis on quality; to ensure that the right people with the right skills were in the right places to deliver. Councillors expressed the wish to be kept up-to-date with the progress of this programme.

A Member asked if consideration had been given to transferring some functions to the Parish Councils, especially those with Quality Status. Mrs Agass explained that this could certainly be explored in the future, but was not included within current plans. It was also noted that partnership working had been mentioned within the presentation. Mrs Agass accepted the need to work in partnerships, but that the Council must be clear about adopting a proactive and productive approach to partnerships.

The Chairman thanked Mrs Agass for her presentation and re-iterated Members’ request that they be kept informed with the progress of the programme.

(3.00pm – the Corporate Heads and Service Managers re-entered the meeting).

(3.00 pm – Cllr Mike Williams left the meeting).

Report number CHSC021 by the Housing Portfolio Holder.   (Enclosure)

DECISION:

To approve the content of the Housing Strategy, subject to minor typographical amendments.

Report CHSC0021 was introduced by the Corporate Governance and Housing Portfolio Holder. It was noted that some typographical errors were still to be rectified within the report. Councillor Carpenter advised Members of the different approach used to create the strategy; involving all stakeholders in the process rather than consulting them once it was complete. The recommendation in the report was then moved and seconded, subject to the typographical errors being rectified.

A debate took place and a number of issues were raised. Concern was expressed regarding the lack of mention of Stamford or the Deepings within the ‘Good for Business’ priority, the Deepings were not included within a graph depicting affordable housing delivery in South Kesteven, and Stamford appeared to have less than half the delivery of that in Grantham and Bourne. The Corporate Head of Sustainable Communities explained that Grantham was deemed a sub-regional centre of the East Midlands region, and therefore received more funding for affordable housing. Bourne was also seen as an urban centre and was taken by the Council to be a priority area. She explained that affordable housing was not led by a target of numbers. Developers might see opportunities, and the Council could not prevent them from applying. However, the Development Control team liaised carefully with developers before any applications for large developments were submitted.

(3.10 pm – Cllr Mike Williams re-entered the meeting).

A Member asked how much notice was taken of population growth. The Corporate Head of Sustainable Communities noted that population growth was considered within the planning framework. Another member questioned a lost opportunity to build new council houses. The Corporate Head explained that although the Council had not directed any builds recently, they were committed to investigating the idea, and the full financial implications.

Members discussed empty properties. It was confirmed by the Corporate Head that private properties were included within the strategy as well as Council stock. A Private Property Housing Policy was already in place, encouraging owners to bring properties back into use by using incentives.

In summing up, the Portfolio Holder of Corporate Governance and Housing suggested that ‘imitation is the sincerest form of flattery’, and noted that another authority had already asked to use the strategy.

On being put to the vote, the motion was duly carried.

Report number DEM038 by the Chief Executive.         (Enclosure)

DECISION:

1. That the Chief Executive, as Returning Officer for South Kesteven, be granted delegated authority in consultation with Ward Councillors to determine Polling places in accordance with Section 16 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006.
2. That Members are provided with location maps detailing the Polling Districts within their Ward and highlighting existing Polling Places for any views and comments.

(This item was moved forward on the agenda at the request of the Chairman).

In introducing report DEM038 by the Chief Executive, the Portfolio Holder for Access and Engagement emphasised that ward Councillors would be consulted when any changes to Polling Places were proposed. It was moved and seconded to approve the recommendations as set out in the report. This was duly carried.

[The refreshment break took place between 3.27pm and 3.45pm]

(At the recommencement of the meeting, Councillors Gaffigan and Mike Williams were not present).  

Report number AFM132 by the Economic Development Portfolio Holder.

                                                                                                (Enclosure)

DECISION:

To agree in principle that:-

1.1 Civilian Parking Enforcement is undertaken within the administrative boundary of South Kesteven District Council through partnership with the other seven authorities covering on and off street enforcement.

1.2 Authorisation is given for Lincolnshire County Council’s application to the Department for Transport for Civilian Parking Enforcement on behalf of the authority.

1.3 South Kesteven District Council resolves to join ‘The Joint Committee of England and Wales for the civil enforcement of parking and Traffic Regulations outside London’ in accordance with the requirements of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. This requires a member nomination and substitute nomination at an appropriate time.

1.4 The level of differential penalty charge as stated in Statutory Instrument 2007 No. 3487, Road Traffic, England will be adopted. The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Guidelines on Levels of Charges) (England) Order 2007 be set at band 2 PCN level, discounted by 50% for payment within 14 days, and incremented by 50% for payment after the issue of a Charge Certificate.

1.5 Council delegate the authority to sign the partnership Memorandum of Understanding and any associated Service Level Agreement to the Chief Executive and the Leader of the Council.

1.6 That the Council considers going to external enforcement.

1.7 That authorisation is given for South Kesteven District Council to use the central processing unit for the administration of the tickets and guarantee a minimum level of tickets per annum to be paid for.

In introducing report AFM0132, the Portfolio Holder for Economic Development noted an amendment she wished to be made to recommendation 1.6 – to replace ‘proceeds with external enforcement’ with ‘considers going to external enforcement’. The recommendations contained within the report were then moved and seconded, subject to this minor amendment.

A debate followed and several issues were raised. Councillor Wootten expressed the view that the sooner the better for parking enforcement to come to fruition. He also suggested that the Portfolio Holder might consider writing to the new Superintendent of Lincolnshire Police. Mention was made of the Notice of Motion to be heard later in the meeting, and it was expressed that it would have been helpful to discuss these items together.

Members were in agreement that there was an on street parking enforcement problem in South Kesteven. However, some Members had strong reservations with regard to the implementation of Civil Parking Enforcement in its current format.  It was felt by some that South Kesteven should retain more control as a district. Another concern expressed was that external contractors would be profit-driven and have targets for the number of Penalty Notice Charges issued. This could result in less democratic accountability, which would potentially be to the detriment of local residents and damaging to the Council’s reputation.

The Corporate Head of Resources and Organisational Development advised Members that he was on a working group that was party to the development of specifications for external contractors. He assured Members that there would be a level of quality of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

Report number PLA804 by the Economic Development Portfolio Holder.

                                                                                                            (Enclosure)

DECISION:

1.      To agree the amendments to Policy H3 set out in Appendix B of report PLA 804; and

2.      Following consultation, the amendments be submitted to the Core Strategy Examination.

Report number PLA 804 was introduced by the Portfolio Holder for Economic Development. It was noted that the Core Strategy was required to be updated. It was proposed and seconded that the recommendations contained within report PLA 804 be approved. In being put to the vote, the motion was carried.

The Chairman of the Constitution Committee to submit the recommendations of the committee from its meeting held on 11 January 2010.

Report by the Monitoring Officer.                                      (To follow)

DECISION:

1.1 Delegation of powers currently vested with the Director of Tenancy Services 

a.) That the following amendments to the delegations be approved to those officers listed including the addition at 5a & 5b of Section 128 Housing Act 1996:

Report number DEM037 by the Democracy Service Manager.         

                                                                                                            (Enclosure)

Report DEM 037 was introduced by the Portfolio Holder for Access and Engagement. He advised that this report was just for noting, and that any comments should be made to the Service Manager of Democratic Services as soon as possible, in order for the report to come back to full Council on the 23^rd April for final approval.

It was noted that in July and August there were three Development Control Committee meetings scheduled close to each other. It was suggested that this was an error and would be amended.

A Member urged all Chairmen to keep to the scheduled dates for meetings once they had been approved, as Members had busy diaries and sometimes found it impossible to attend if meetings were moved. Another Member noted that it was not always the Chairman who moved meetings; sometimes, particularly with quasai-judicial committees, meetings had to be moved due to time restrictions allowed by legislation.  

The Leader of the Council noted the May cabinet meeting was scheduled for 10^th may. She apologised as she had booked leave for that week, assuming that the Cabinet meeting would be held on the first Monday of the month as usual. She reserved the right to reschedule and confirm a new date when the report came back to Council.

The Chairman of the Engagement PDG queried why the Engagement PDG had been scheduled for Tuesday 4^th May, when they usually met on a Thursday. He was advised that this was due to the probability of a General Election being called for that week.

A Member queried why there seem to be quite a gap between some Council meetings on the proposed calendar. The Chief Executive advised that a Council meeting had been scheduled for December 2010 rather than January 2011, as there was a strong probability of the Council needing to consider new legislation before the New Year. She felt it sensible to schedule a December meeting rather than having to arrange an extra-ordinary meeting for December as well as having a scheduled meeting in January.

The Portfolio Holder for Access and Engagement re-iterated that the calendar was up for consultation with Members, and that Members should speak to the Service Manager of Democratic Services with any other queries and / or amendments.

In accordance with Access to Information Procedure Rule 17.3, the Leader to submit report number CAB014 on a non key decision taken under special urgency provisions.                                                   (Enclosure) 

Report number CAB014 by the Leader was noted.

To note the list of questions asked under Council procedure rule 11.1 as circulated at the start of the meeting and their reference to the relevant Policy Development Group.

There were no questions on Notice.

From Councillor Harvey:

“This Council acknowledges the significant parking problems in each of our major towns.   The lack of an up to date car parking strategy to reflect the needs of all the main user groups, exacerbated by insufficient parking enforcement results in illegal and inconsiderate parking which has a direct impact on tourism, trade and the desirability of our towns as destinations of choice.

This Council resolves to design and implement a car parking strategy that will meet the needs of all users (shoppers, tourists, workers and residents) and that will encompass civilian parking enforcement in an acceptable form, working in conjunction with all the other key stakeholders including Lincolnshire County Council and using the knowledge and expertise available through the District Councillors associated with each town.”

PLEASE NOTE:  The deadline for submitting Notices of Motion to the next Council meeting on Monday 1 March 2010 will be 2pm on Tuesday 16 February 2010.

DECISION:

This Council acknowledges the lack of parking enforcement has a detrimental impact on the district’s towns in relation to tourism, trade and the desirability as a destination of choice and therefore resolves to endeavour to address the issues within the Council’s capability and available resources.

Councillor John Harvey presented the following motion:

“This Council acknowledges the significant parking problems in each of our major towns. The lack of an up to date car parking strategy to reflect the needs of all the main user groups, exacerbated by insufficient parking enforcement results in illegal and inconsiderate parking which has a direct impact on tourism, trade and the desirability of our towns as destinations of choice.

This Council resolves to design and implement a car parking strategy that will meet the needs of all users (shoppers, tourists, workers and residents) and that will encompass civilian parking enforcement in an acceptable form, working in conjunction with all the other key stakeholders including Lincolnshire County Council and using the knowledge and expertise available through the District Councillors associated with each town.”

In support of his motion, Councillor Harvey emphasised he considered this a serious issue. He felt that a one-size-fits-all attitude was not helpful to moving the district forward, but that each town should be looked at individually. Councillor Harvey felt that local knowledge was key to revitalise the vibrant historical towns.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Mrs Jalili, who fully supported the idea of addressing problems in a coherent and consistent manner. She referred to a presentation received from Stamford Chamber of Trade and Commerce, where they had stated they were so confident in their proposals that they were willing to underwrite their scheme if the Council would only agree to trial it.

Councillor Ray Wootten then proposed the following amendment to the proposal:

“This Council acknowledges the lack of parking enforcement has a detrimental impact on the district’s towns in relation to tourism, trade and the desirability as a destination of choice and therefore resolves to endeavour to address the issues within the Council’s capability and available resources”.

This was seconded by Councillor Tom Webster. In opposition to the amendment, Councillor Harvey expressed concern that the Council would not give enough commitment to residents to deal with parking problems. He felt that his original motion was in line with the priorities outlined by the Chief Executive earlier in the meeting. Councillor Mrs Jalili, also in opposition to the amendment, felt that the amendment was too generalised, and lacked specific detail.

In support of the amendment, Councillor Neal emphasised the Council could not do anything not within its powers.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was duly carried. The amendment now became the substantive motion. On being put to the vote the motion was also carried.

The meeting concluded at  4.56 pm.