Agenda and minutes

1  To highlight reports or appendices which officers have identified as containing exempt information, and where officers consider that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, for the reasons outlined in the report.

2  To consider whether or not to accept the officers recommendation in respect of the above information.

3  If so, to formally pass the following resolution:-

  RESOLVED – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following parts of the agenda designated as containing exempt information on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information, as follows:

RESOLVED – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following parts of the agenda, designated as containing exempt information, on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the press and public were present, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information, as follows:-

-  Agenda item 10 – Scrutiny Inquiry – Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision in Leeds (Minute No. 52 refers).

Appendix to the report of Chief Officer (Legal, Licensing and Registration) – Agenda Pages 81-90 – Access to Information Procedure Rules 10.4(5) – Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings; and

Appendix B to the report of Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods – Agenda Pages 103-106 – Access to Information Procedure Rules 10.4(1) – Information relating to any individual.

To declare any personal / prejudicial interests for the purpose of Section 81 (3) of the Local Government Act 2000 and paragraphs 8 to 12 of the Members Code of Conduct.

The following declarations of personal interest were made:-

-  Councillor G Hyde – Agenda Item 9 (Minute No. 51 refers) – Budget Analysis for the HRA and General Fund 2010/11 – in his capacity as a Director of Leeds East North East Homes ALMO.

-  Councillor G Driver– Agenda Item 9 (Minute No. 51 refers) – Budget Analysis for the HRA and General Fund 2010/11 – in his capacity as a Director of Aire Valley Homes ALMO.

-  Councillor R Grahame – Agenda Item 9 (Minute No. 51 refers) – Budget Analysis for the HRA and General Fund 2010/11 – in his capacity as a member of the East North East Homes ALMO Inner East Area Panel and also in his capacity as a former Chair of Swarcliffe PFI.

-  Councillor R Grahame – Agenda Item 7 (Minute No. 49 refers) – The Future of Council Housing – in his capacity as a member of the West Yorkshire Pension Fund (Agenda Page 23, Paragraph 10.5 refers).

(See also later Minute No. 51.)

To confirm as a correct record the attached minutes of the meeting held on 11^th October 2010.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 11^th October 2010 be confirmed as a correct record.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods, submitted to the Executive Board on 3^rd November 2010.

The Board considered the report of the Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods, first submitted to the Executive Board on 3^rd November 2010.

In attendance at the meeting, and responding to Members’ queries and comments, were:-

-  Neil Evans, Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods.

-  John Statham, Strategic Landlord Manager, Environment and Neighbourhoods.

-  Claire Warren, Chief Executive, West North West Homes ALMO.

In brief summary, the main points of discussion were:-

·  The proposed composition of the Strategic Governance Board – This was proposed to comprise the Executive Member (Neighbourhoods and Housing), the Chairs and Chief Executives of the three ALMOs, the Chair and the Chief Executive of the Belle Isle Tenant Management Organisation (BITMO) and the Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods.  The strategic role of the Board was explained.  The proposed formal Terms of Reference of the Board would be the subject of a further report to the Executive Board in March. Members were assured that the day to day operation of Council housing would remain the responsibility of the ALMOs.

·  The proposed Shared Services Centre, and the potential savings which could be achieved by avoiding the current duplication of functions and processes across the three ALMOs.

·  The proposed rationalisation of the ALMO boundaries to make them coterminous with Ward boundaries.  Only a few hundred properties would be directly affected by the proposed changes.

The Chair indicated that the Scrutiny Board wished to be kept informed and updated as the proposals progressed.  The Board would also wish to receive a report once the Government’s intentions were clearer regarding the future of Council housing, the HRA and future proposed rent levels.

RESOLVED –

a)  That the report, and the decisions of the Executive Board taken on 3^rd November 2010, be received and noted.

b)  That this Board be updated as proposals progress, and also receive a report in due course once the Government’s intentions on the future of Council housing become known.

(NB:  Councillor R Procter joined the meeting at 10.08 am, during the consideration of this item.)

To receive and consider the attached report of the Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods, submitted to the Executive Board on 3^rd November 2010.

The Board considered the report of the Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods, first submitted to the Executive Board on 3^rd November 2010.

In attendance at the meeting, and responding to Members’ queries and comments, were:-

-  Neil Evans, Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods.

-  Stacey Campbell, Team Leader, Health and Environmental Action Service.

In brief summary, the main points of discussion were:-

·  Whether the limit on the number of dogs which could be walked by one person should be six, in line with DEFRA guidelines, or restricted to four.

Members regarded that six doges was too high a figure, even for professional dog walkers, and were mindful that in the survey carried out by the Council, 68% of respondents felt that four or less dogs was the maximum number which one person could safely control and clean up after.

Officers made reference to the DEFRA guidelines, which was no more than six dogs.  It was regarded that the size and response to the survey, allied to the fact that most complaints received referred to a greater number of dogs than six, did not provide sufficient justification for ignoring the DEFRA guidelines.  The situation was open to review after, say, six months in operation.

·  The list of playgrounds appended to the report where Orders would apply.  Members stated that this was not a comprehensive list, and also queried the arrangements in open spaces where the children’s playgrounds were not fenced off.

It was explained that the list comprised the playgrounds controlled by the Parks and Countryside Division.  In the case of unfenced children’s playgrounds, special attention would be paid to the wording of the signs to make it clear exactly which areas were covered by the Orders.  The dogs on leads by direction of an authorised officer provisions would also assist in terms of enforcing the Orders.

The Chair requested that all 99 Councillors be circulated the list of playgrounds proposed to be the subject of the Orders, so that any possible omissions could be identified.

·  The numbers of staff who would be enforcing the new Orders – currently eighty staff were authorised and fully trained to issue fixed penalty tickets, and ten more existing staff would be trained, bringing the total to ninety.  The new Orders would be in operation early in the New Year.

The Chair indicated that the Board wished to receive an update report in due course, when the new Orders had been in operation for, say, six months, including details of all enforcement action taken and how effective this had been.

In summing up, the Chair congratulated Stacey Campbell and her team regarding this initiative and the work done to date.  Following on from the Board’s previous Inquiry into this matter, he regarded that the action now being taken was a good example of a Scrutiny Board working in partnership with the Executive to achieve a positive outcome.

RESOLVED –

a)  That the report, and the decisions of the Executive Board taken on 3^{rd  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.}

To receive and consider the attached analysis of the outturn position for the Housing Revenue Account for period 6 and an analysis of the outturn position for the Environment and Neighbourhoods Directorate General Fund for period 6.

Further to Minute No. 40, 11^th October 2010, the Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods updated the Board regarding the key variances and the proposed outturn figures for 2010/11, as at the end of Period 6 (30^th September 2010), in respect of both the HRA and the Directorate General Fund. The report also included relevant extracts from the reports submitted by the Director of Resources to the Executive Board meeting held on 3^rd November 2010, concerning the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review and the half-yearly report on Financial Health Monitoring 2010/11.

In attendance at the meeting, and responding to Members’ queries and comments, were:-

-  Neil Evans, Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods.

-  Richard Ellis, Head of Finance, Environment and Neighbourhoods.

In brief summary, the main points of discussion were:-

·  The involvement of the Board in the preparation of the Directorate’s 2011/12 budget.  It was reported that the Council’s broad financial strategy would be the subject of a report to the Executive Board in December, after which the Executive’s initial budget proposals would be available for Scrutiny. Constitutionally, this gave the Scrutiny Boards in excess of the required six week period to consider the Executive’s proposals and to make any recommendations by mid-January 2011 for the Executive Board to consider at the end of January or early February.

·  The loss of parking revenue, and possible strategies to try to reduce the loss or explore new sources of income, e.g. charging for street parking in more areas.  Reference was also made to land currently belonging to Primrose Hill High School, and whether or not this might be utilised for parking, given its proximity to St James’ Hospital.  The Director undertook to follow the issue up.

·  The projected staffing overspend, the reasons behind this and the Council’s current redeployment policy.

·  The demise of Yorkshire Forward and the effect on the Employment Leeds initiative.

·  Current difficulties being experienced across the City with the recently introduced revised refuse collection rounds.  The Board requested an update report at the December meeting.

RESOLVED – That, subject to the above comments and request for a report back, the report be received and noted.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development and to receive evidence from officers of various Council Departments.

Further to Minute No. 41, 11^th October 2010, the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development submitted a report updating the Board on progress in respect of this Inquiry, including the notes of the Working Group meeting held on 20^th October 2010.  The notes and reports relating to the Working Group’s latest meeting, held on 1^st November 2010, would be submitted to the Board on 2^nd December. The Working Group was scheduled to meet again on 15^th and 29^th November, at 12 noon, and all Board Members were welcome to attend.

In attendance at the meeting, and responding to Members’ queries and comments were:-

-  Bridget Emery, Head of Housing Strategy and Solutions.

-  Phil Crabtree, Chief Planning Officer.

-  Robin Coghlan, Team Leader - Policy, City Development.

-  Rehana Minhas, Director of Equality and Entitlement, Education Leeds.

-  Claire Lockwood, GRT Achievement Service, Education Leeds.

-  Andrea Richardson, Interim Head of Early Years Service.

-  Jayne North, Cottingley Children’s Centre.

-  Ian Spafford, Head of Community Services and Litigation, Legal Services.

-  Karen Blackmore, Team Leader, General Litigation, Legal Services.

-  Shaid Mahmood, Locality Pathfinder Manager and SE Area Manager, South East Area Management.

In brief summary, the main points of discussion were:-

Planning Issues

·  Planning was involved with gypsy and traveller sites in various ways.  These were set out at Paragraphs 2.5 to 2.10 of the attached report of the Chief Officer, Legal, Licensing ad Registration (Agenda Pages 74 and 75 refer).

·  From some of the witnesses heard to date, and from previous discussions and exchanges with the Leeds Gypsies and Travellers Exchange (GATE), the preferred option being expressed by the local gypsy and traveller community was for the Council to provide several smaller sites around the City rather than one large one or the extension of the existing Cottingley Springs site.  However, there were different views, even amongst the gypsy and traveller community.  Any proposals would be subject to full public consultation processes, reports to the Development Plans Panel and the Executive Board, and possibly also a Public Inquiry as part of the process of adopting the Council’s core planning strategies.

·  A private application for a small site in Gildersome had recently been approved, and two more were in the system, one in Thorner and one in Chapel Allerton.  The Planning Department was also involved with a site in Ardsley and Robin Hood Ward, which had previously been the subject of a Stop Notice and High Court injunction.

·  The legal definition of a ‘pitch’ in relation to a caravan site. – Was a pitch a concrete slab accommodating one van, or could it be a larger slab for more than one van?  The officers reported that, currently, there was no legal definition of what constituted a pitch.  For planning purposes, it was interpreted as a slab for one van and associated equipment and lorries, and a site might comprise of several pitches.  However, at Cottingley Springs, each pitch was sometimes used  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development outlining the Scrutiny Board’s work programme for the remainder of the current municipal year.

The Head of Scrutiny and Member Development submitted the Board’s work programme, updated to reflect decisions taken at previous meetings, together with a relevant extract from the Council’s Forward Plan of Key Decisions for the period 1^st November 2010 – 28^th February 2011 and the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Board held on 13^th October 2010.

RESOLVED – That, subject to any changes necessary as a result of today’s meeting, the work programme be approved.

Thursday 2^nd December 2010 (provisional only)

Monday 13^th December 2010

Monday 17^th January 2011

Monday 14^th February 2011

Monday 14^th March 2011

Monday 11^th April 2011

All at 10am ( Pre Meetings 9.30am )

Thursday, 2^nd December 2010.

Monday, 13^th December 2010.

Monday, 17^th January 2011

Monday, 14^th February 2011

Monday, 14^th March 2011

Monday, 11^th April 2011

All at 10.00 am (Pre-Meetings at 9.30 am).