Shrewsbury & Atcham
Borough Council

MINUTES OF COUNCIL

25^TH JULY 2005

PRESENT: The Mayor (Councillor Farmer)

Councillors Adams, Mrs Allaway, Armstrong, Bebb, Mrs Brennand, Bushell, Mrs Chaplin, Mrs. Chebsey, Clarke, Cooke, Evans, Mrs. Holyoak, Jetson, Mrs. Jones, J.P. Jones, Kenny, Lord, Moore, Nutting, Mrs Owen, Owen, Parkhurst, Mrs Parsons, Price, Rees, Richey, Roberts, Sambrook, Mrs Sandford, Thurston, Wagner, Ms. Wild, J M Williams and S J Williams.

Officers in attendance: Chief Executive, Director of Community Services, Head of Finance, Assistant Solicitor (Deputy Monitoring Officer) and Committee Services Officer.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Councillors Freestone, Tandy, Townsend and Mrs Williams.

MINUTES: 19^th May 2005 - confirmed.

PRAYERS

Prayers were said by the Reverend Robin McKenzie.

COUNCILLOR R JONES

The Mayor referred with sadness to the death on 27^th June 2005 of Councillor Reg Jones who was held in great respect by all who knew him and would be sadly missed. Councillors Mrs. Holyoak, Kenny, Nutting and Sambrook spoke in his memory and paid tribute to his service both to the Council and the local community. Members and officers the stood for a minutes silence in respect to the memory of Councillor Reg Jones.

77/05 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The following members declared their personal and/or personal and prejudicial interests in the items shown below:

Councillor Mrs. Allaway - Minute 85/05 - Snailbeach Farm, Snailbeach -Contaminated Land - Personal and Prejudicial interest as a member of Shropshire County Council. She left the room during the consideration and voting on this item.

Councillor Armstrong - Minute 86/05 - Affordable Housing Development on Council Owned Land - Personal interest as a Council appointed member of Severnside Housing Association.

Councillor Armstrong - Minute 87/05 - Interim Affordable Housing Policies - Personal interest as a Council appointed member of Severnside Housing Association.

(Councillor Armstrong stated that his declarations of personal interests only in the above items had been cleared by the Monitoring Officer under paragraph 10 (2) (c) of the Code of Conduct.)

Councillor Mrs. Chebsey - Minute 85/05 - Snailbeach Farm, Snailbeach - Contaminated Land - Personal and Prejudicial interest as a member of Shropshire County Council. She left the room during the consideration and voting on this item.

Councillor Clarke - Minute 85/05 - Snailbeach Farm, Snailbeach - Contaminated Land - Personal and Prejudicial interest as a member of Shropshire County Council. He left the room during the consideration and voting on this item.

Councillor Evans - Minute 85/05 - Snailbeach Farm, Snailbeach - Contaminated Land - Personal and Prejudicial interest, as he understood it to be the case at this time, as a member of Shropshire County Council. He left the room during the consideration and voting on this item.

Councillor Evans - Minute 86/05 - Affordable Housing Development on Council Owned Land - Personal and Prejudicial interest as a member of Severnside Housing Association. He left the room during the consideration and voting on this item.

Councillor Evans - Minute 87/05 - Interim Affordable Housing Policies - Personal and Prejudicial interest as a member of Severnside Housing Association. He left the room during the consideration and voting on this item.

Councillor Mrs Holyoak - Minute 85/05 - Snailbeach Farm, Snailbeach - Contaminated Land - Personal and Prejudicial interest as a member of Shropshire County Council. She left the room during the consideration and voting on this item.

Councillor Mrs Holyoak - Minute 86/05 - Affordable Housing Development on Council Owned Land - Personal and Prejudicial interest as a member of Severnside Housing Association. She left the room during the consideration and voting on this item.

Councillor Mrs Holyoak - Minute 87/05 - Interim Affordable Housing Policies - Personal and Prejudicial interest as a member of Severnside Housing Association. She left the room during the consideration and voting on this item.

Councillor Kenny - Minute 85/05 - Snailbeach Farm, Snailbeach - Contaminated Land - Personal and Prejudicial interest as a member of Shropshire County Council. He left the room during the consideration and voting on this item.

Councillor Kenny - Minute 88/05 - Public Convenience Provision in Shrewsbury - Personal interest as a member of the Parochial Church Council.

Councillor Kenny - Minute 97/05 - Motion Received on Notice - Cycle Helmets - Personal interest as a member of the Cyclist's Forum.

Councillor Nutting - Minute 85/05 - Snailbeach Farm, Snailbeach - Contaminated Land - Personal and Prejudicial interest as a member of Shropshire County Council. He left the room during the consideration and voting on this item.

Councillor Nutting - Minute 86/05 - Affordable Housing Development on Council Owned Land - Personal and Prejudicial interest as a Council appointed member of Severnside Housing Association. He left the room during the consideration and voting on this item.

Councillor Nutting - Minute 87/05 - Interim Affordable Housing Policies - Personal and Prejudicial interest as a Council appointed member of Severnside Housing Association. He left the room during the consideration and voting on this item.

(Councillor Nutting stated that, although he was of the view that he would be covered by paragraph 10 (2) (c) of the Code of Conduct, he had declared personal and prejudicial interests in respect of Minutes 86/05 and 87/05 due to the continuing uncertainty of the position for members of the Council who were also members of Severnside Housing Association. He indicated that he had asked the Chief Executive to bring a report to Cabinet on a suggested protocol on which the relationship between the Council and Severnside Housing Association could operate.)

Councillor Owen - Minute 85/05 - Snailbeach Farm, Snailbeach - Contaminated Land - Personal and Prejudicial interest as a member of Shropshire County Council. He left the room during the consideration and voting on this item.

Councillor Mrs. Parsons - Minute 85/05 - Snailbeach Farm, Snailbeach - Contaminated Land - Personal and Prejudicial interest as a member of Shropshire County Council. She left the room during the consideration and voting on this item.

Councillor Richey - Minute 85/05 - Snailbeach Farm, Snailbeach - Contaminated Land - Personal and Prejudicial interest as a member of Shropshire County Council. He left the room during the consideration and voting on this item.

Councillor Mrs. Sandford - Minute 85/05 - Snailbeach Farm, Snailbeach - Contaminated Land - Personal and Prejudicial interest as a member of Shropshire County Council. She left the room during the consideration and voting on this item.

Councillor J.M. Williams - Minute 88/05 - Public Convenience Provision in Shrewsbury - Personal interest as a member of the Abbey Heritage Group and the English Bridge Workshop.

78/05 COMMUNICATIONS

The Mayor thanked everyone for their support for the recent Hog Roast which had been well attended and raised a substantial amount of money for the Mayor's Charity Fund. He also thanked everyone for their hard work with Borough in Bloom with the Town looking its best ever in his estimation. The judging had taken place on Friday 22^nd July 2005.

The Mayor then reminded members of the following events:

• The Mayor's Charity Lunch - Post Flower Show. Tickets had been selling extremely well and there were still some available from the Mayor's Secretary.

• The Mayor's Charity Golf Day at Arscott Golf Club on Friday 16^th September 2005. There were still team places available and further sponsorship of tee's and prizes would be very welcome.

• Affiliation with HMS Talent. 5 members of HMS Talent were doing a bike ride in September from Lands End to John O'Groats to raise money for Hope House. They would be in Shrewsbury on Tuesday 20th September 2005 and it was hoped that Council members would support them in their efforts for this good cause. The submarine was being refurbished at present and the crew hoped that they could soon continue their visits to Shrewsbury to carry out good works in the community.

• The Mayor's Own Church Service on Sunday 2nd October 2005 at 11.00 a.m. at St. John's Hill Methodist Church.

The Chief Executive reported on a letter received from the Member of Parliament for Shrewsbury and Atcham as follows:

"The Councillors and officers of the Council have shown extraordinary imagination, foresight and commitment to the Shrewsbury Sports Village. The time, investment and focus needed for this to succeed has obviously been exceptional and I applaud the Council and its officers for their determination and commitment. What excites me greatly is that children of Shrewsbury will be able to benefit under the Active England Scheme. I have been informed that all primary school children will be able to come to this sports village using free transport, to take advantage of the facilities with qualified coaching staff. How many other towns or cities in England can offer this - not many. My congratulations Mr. Mayor to you and all the Members of the Council."

79/05 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - NORTH WEST RELIEF ROAD

Mr. T. Green of Trinity Street, Shrewsbury asked the following questions:

Question 1:

Given that all research shows that new roads lead to an increase in traffic, and therefore in carbon emissions, how does supporting the North-West Relief Road fit in with the aims of the Darwin Conference on climate change, sponsored by the Council?

The Portfolio Holder for Transport and Air Quality, Councillor Roberts, responded as follows:

Answer:

The Stage 2 Environmental Assessment Report for the NWRR prepared by Moore Environment and Mouchel Parkman on behalf of the Shropshire County Council states that CO₂ emissions decrease with the road in place. This is due to the predicted decrease in vehicle kilometres travelled of between 1.69% and 2.5% dependent on the preferred route option.

Mr. Green asked the following supplementary question:

Supplementary Question:

Does the Portfolio Holder not accept that the emissions resulting from the creation of the road and from the increased vehicle journeys, which all research shows will result from a new road, should have been included in the Council's considerations of the CO2 emissions resulting from the road and that they considerably outweigh this negligible decrease in vehicle kilometres per journey and if he does not agree with that, why not?

The Portfolio Holder for Transport and Air Quality, Councillor Roberts, responded as follows:

Supplementary Answer:

Thank you for your supplementary question, I will refer your comments to Shropshire County Council and get you a written reply.

Question 2:

Given that the proposed routings for the North-West Relief Road involve the disruption of sites of special scientific interest and the old bed of the River Severn, formed over 10,000 years ago, how does supporting the North-West Relief Road fit in with the Council's stated aim that Shrewsbury should become a Centre of Environmental Excellence?

Answer:

The EA Report highlights the concerns raised by English Nature in respect of the route options. These relate to protected species, the hydrology of key wildlife sites and the impact upon the River Severn and its floodplain. It is noted in the conclusions and recommendations that whichever route option is preferred, the ecological impact would be "significant adverse", hence any further development of proposals should seek to as far as possible avoid and in any case minimise these impacts. Further targeted surveys would need to be undertaken to refine the impact assessment of the route options, together with recommended measures and safeguards to be implemented during the construction phase. As in any major development proposals, the local community must carefully weigh in the balance the impact of the scheme against other social, economic and environmental benefits. In the case of the NWRR, there are environmental benefits associated with improvements in local traffic noise to local residents, improved local air quality, reduction in greenhouse gases, improved townscape and improved journey ambience. In economic terms, the scheme has the potential to reduce journey times, reduce town centre congestion and encourage inward investment. Notwithstanding this, it should be noted that the Council has maintained its "in principle" support for the scheme, subject to improved traffic management measures for the town centre being implemented. Further work undertaken by the County Council in respect of the design and mitigation measures associated with a preferred route option (if selected) and the production of a formal Environmental Statement will need to be considered by the Borough Council once draft orders are published.

Mr. Green asked the following supplementary question:

Supplementary Question:

In view of the inconsistencies in the answer given which refers to both environmental concerns and environmental benefits, which word does the Portfolio Holder not understand "environmental" or "excellence"?

The Portfolio Holder for Transport and Air Quality, Councillor Roberts, responded as follows:

Supplementary Answer:

I do understand both of those words very well thank you very much and if the North-West Relief Road does come off it is absolutely vital that it does take into account the countryside around it but let us not forget the benefits to the town centre and the road congestion it will help to relieve.

80/05 POLITICAL BALANCE

It was proposed by Councillor Nutting , seconded by Councillor Kenny and

RESOLVED:

That, subject to the number of seats on the Licensing and Safety Committee being increased to 13 on a temporary basis and the extra seat being taken by a member of the Liberal Democrat Group in order to facilitate the retention of members on that Committee who had undertaken training on the Licensing Act 2003, the allocation of seats to Committees be in accordance with the rules of political balance and as set out in the Annex submitted to Council.

81/05 CABINET - RECORD OF DELEGATION

It was proposed by Councillor Nutting, seconded by Councillor Roberts and

RESOLVED:

That it be noted that no delegations have been approved by Cabinet for inclusion in the Council's scheme of delegation at Part 3 to the Constitution.

82/05 COMMUNITY SAFETY STRATEGY 2005 - 2008

It was proposed by Councillor Mrs. Holyoak, seconded by Councillor Nutting and

RESOLVED:

That the Community Safety Strategy 2005/2008 be adopted.

83/05 FOOD LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE PLAN 2005/2006

It was proposed by Councillor Cooke, seconded by Councillor Bebb and

RESOLVED:

That the Food Law Enforcement Service Plan 2005/2006 be adopted.

84/05 CALCULATION OF THE COUNCIL TAX BASE

It was proposed by Councillor Nutting, seconded by Councillor Roberts and

RESOLVED:

That the decision to adopt the Council Tax Base be delegated to Cabinet.

85/05 SNAILBEACH FARM, SNAILBEACH - CONTAMINATED LAND INVESTIGATION

It was proposed by Councillor Cooke, seconded by Councillor Price and

RESOLVED:

(a) That remediation works be carried out, including repairing the fence, removal of contaminated soil to 250 mm depth and replace, re-seed, erect stock proof fence until grass is re-established at a cost of £55,000 and be funded by the Council as part of its statutory duty to deal with this "orphan linkage".

(b) That in view of the relatively low cost involved, the Environmental Health Manager be authorised to liaise with the Engineering Services Manager to appoint a suitable contractor to carry out the work and the supervision of the work be carried out by the Engineering Services Manager.

(c) That the cost of up to £55,000 be met from the General Fund Balance.

(d) That an application be made to DEFRA for SCE funding against the costs of the work.

86/05 AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON COUNCIL OWNED LAND

It was proposed by Councillor Roberts and seconded by Councillor Bebb that the recommendations of Cabinet be adopted, namely:

"(a) That the following principles for the development of land in Council ownership be adopted:

(i) Sites that form part of the portfolio of strategically relevant sites namely:

• Underdale Road Depot;

• Beech Tree Lodge;

• Land at Nettles Lane;

• Land in Barker Street;

• Land adjoining the Flaxmill;

• Telephone House site;

• Tesco's Arlington Way; and

• Nursery

are developed to maximise best price delivering any affordable housing in accordance with the Council's adopted planning policies.

(ii) Other suitable land in Council ownership is developed to secure maximum effective affordable housing achieving a 4% return on the capital expended in delivering the scheme.

(b) The allocation of £50,000 funded from reserved capital receipts, delegated to the Director of Development Services in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Housing, for use by the Affordable Housing Task Group to develop schemes towards the delivery of affordable housing."

It was moved as an amendment by Councillor Price and seconded by Councillor Armstrong that the recommendations be amended by the addition of the following recommendation (c):

"(c) That 10% of the capital received, if any, for the sites listed in recommendation (a) be allocated to a budget for affordable housing, except for Underdale Road Depot due to a prior Council decision on this being with the last six months."

On being put to the meeting the amendment was carried unanimously.

It was moved as a second amendment by Councillor Clarke and seconded by Councillor Sambrook that recommendation (a) (ii) be amended to read as follows:

"(ii) Other suitable land in the Council ownership is developed to secure maximum effective affordable housing."

On being put to the meeting the second amendment was lost with 10 members voting in favour and 16 against.

The original motion as amended was then put to Council and it was

RESOLVED:

(a) That the following principles for the development of land in Council ownership be adopted:

(i) Sites that form part of the portfolio of strategically relevant sites namely:

• Underdale Road Depot;

• Beech Tree Lodge;

• Land at Nettles Lane;

• Land in Barker Street;

• Land adjoining the Flaxmill;

• Telephone House site;

• Tesco's Arlington Way; and

• Nursery

are developed to maximise best price delivering any affordable housing in accordance with the Council's adopted planning policies.

(ii) Other suitable land in Council ownership is developed to secure maximum effective affordable housing achieving a 4% return on the capital expended in delivering the scheme.

(b) The allocation of £50,000 funded from reserved capital receipts, delegated to the Director of Development Services in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Housing, for use by the Affordable Housing Task Group to develop schemes towards the delivery of affordable housing.

(c) That 10% of the capital received, if any, for the sites listed in recommendation (a) be allocated to a budget for affordable housing, except for Underdale Road Depot due to a prior Council decision on this being with the last six months.

87/05 INTERIM AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICIES

It was proposed by Councillor Roberts, seconded by Councillor Price and

RESOLVED:

That the Interim Affordable Housing Policies as set out in the published consultation draft be adopted, subject to the following amendments:

(a) Inclusion of reference in the reasoned justifications of Amended HS7 and HS8 regarding the mix of affordable housing to be sought on schemes, stating that the Council will seek a mix of affordable housing to meet identified needs, based on the most up to date information available for the area concerned, and that guidance on this will be published in the Council's Annual Housing Strategy Statement.

(b) Addition of a further tier to the cascade approach set out in paragraph 3.85 of the reasoned justification:

"(iv) Persons who are resident elsewhere and have a strong local connection with the Borough by birth or upbringing or current/proposed employment or previous period of residence".

(c) Amendment of paragraph 3.87 to clarify that the cascade tiers are (i) resident in Shrewsbury Urban Area and having a strong local connection with Shrewsbury Urban Area; (ii) resident in the Borough and having a strong local connection with the Borough; and (iii) resident elsewhere and having a strong local connection with the Borough.

(d) Amendment of paragraph 3.85 (b) to state that the calculation of affordability will be based on the average gross weekly earnings figure for Shropshire, frozen at 2004 levels until matched and then replaced by the median gross weekly earnings figure.

88/05 PUBLIC CONVENIENCE PROVISION IN SHREWSBURY

It was proposed by Councillor Cooke and seconded by Councillor Nutting that the recommendations of Cabinet be adopted, namely:

"That the present toilets in Abbey Foregate be marketed and the moneys received be ring fenced towards the provision of new toilets in the Abbey Foregate area and in the event of the existing toilets closing prior to the new permanent one being provided, temporary facilities be provided."

It was moved as an amendment by Councillor J.M. Williams and seconded by Councillor Mrs. Allaway that the recommendation of Cabinet be deleted and replaced by the following recommendation:

"That the present toilets in Abbey Foregate be not sold until new permanent toilet facilities are provided in the Abbey Foregate area."

On being put to the meeting the amendment was lost with 10 members voting in favour and 19 against.

It was moved as a second amendment by Councillor Ms. Wild and seconded by Councillor Mrs. Holyoak that the recommendation be amended by the addition of the following recommendation (b), with the original recommendation being annotated as recommendation (a):

"That when marketing the current toilets it should be made clear to prospective purchasers that there will be a minimum of 6 months delay from exchange to completion of contracts to allow construction of the new facility."

On being put to the meeting the second amendment was carried.

The original motion as amended was then put to Council and it was

RESOLVED:

(a) That the present toilets in Abbey Foregate be marketed and the moneys received be ring fenced towards the provision of new toilets in the Abbey Foregate area and in the event of the existing toilets closing prior to the new permanent one being provided, temporary facilities be provided.

(b) That when marketing the current toilets it should be made clear to prospective purchasers that there will be a minimum of 6 months delay from exchange to completion of contracts to allow construction of the new facility.

89/05 STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

It was proposed by Councillor Price, seconded by Councillor J.M. Williams and

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY:

That the draft Statement of Community Involvement be approved subject to the amendments outlined in the officer responses in Annex A and formally submitted to the Secretary of State.

90/05 CONSTITUTION - REVIEW OF FINANCIAL PROCEDURES

It was proposed by Councillor J.P. Jones, seconded by Councillor Armstrong and

RESOLVED:

That the Financial Procedure Rules be amended as follows:

"Paragraph 3.92 - Replace "Chief Accountant" with "Senior Accountant"

Paragraph 4.02(e) - delete "stores issue notes, order books"

Paragraph 4.56 - delete "pre-numbered"

Paragraph 4.58 - in the first sentence replace "sign" with "approve" and delete the words "including specimen signatures"

91/05 CONSTITUTION - TEMPORARY STOP NOTICES

It was proposed by Councillor J.P. Jones, seconded by Councillor Armstrong and

RESOLVED:

That the Scheme of Delegation in the Constitution be amended in order to delegate the authority to serve Temporary Stop Notices to the Enforcement Officers.

92/05 INDEPENDENT REMUNERATION PANEL - MEMBERS' ALLOWANCES

It was proposed by Councillor Nutting, seconded by Councillor J.M. Williams and

RESOLVED:

That the recommendations set out in the report of the Independent Remuneration Panel on Members' Allowances be accepted.

93/05 APPROVAL OF ANNUAL STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS

It was proposed by Councillor Nutting, seconded by Councillor Roberts and

RESOLVED:

(a) That the Annual Statement of Accounts for 2004/2005 be approved.

(b) That the Annual Statement of Accounts for 2004/2005 be signed by the Leader of the Council.

(c) That the written representations provided to the Auditor as part of the Audit of the Annual Statement of Accounts for 2004/2005 be approved.

94/05 HIGH HEDGES

It was proposed by Councillor Price, seconded by Councillor Bebb and

RESOLVED:

(a) That a flat rate fee of £320 be charged for all High Hedge complaints with refunds paid in line with an approved schedule dependent upon the stage reached in resolving the complaint.

(b) That the Planning Services Manager be authorised to prepare standard procedures and protocols to be applied to the adjudication of high hedge complaints in accordance with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister guidance.

(c) That the Delegation Scheme to Officers be amended to delegate authority to determine high hedge complaints to the Planning Services Manager.

(d) That a review be undertaken of the procedures and impacts of the high hedge legislation within 12 months of its implementation and the findings and recommendations of the review be reported to Cabinet.

95/05 MOTION RECEIVED ON NOTICE - SUNDORNE ROAD SPEED LIMIT

Due notice having been given in accordance with the Council's procedural rules, the following motion signed by Councillors Mrs Allaway, Clarke, Moore, Parkhurst, Sambrook and Townsend was proposed by Councillor Mrs. Allaway and seconded by Councillor Price:

"That this Council recognises the valuable benefit that will be derived from the Sundorne Sports Village to the residents of the borough.

However it also realises that a further benefit to local residents would be to lower the speed limit to 30 mph for the whole of Sundorne Road from its junction with Featherbed Lane to the junction at Heathgates Island.

This Council there requests the Chief Executive to ask Shropshire County Council to give serious consideration to the lowering of the speed limit as set out above and that a report on their response be made available to all members of Council."

On being put to the meeting the motion was carried.

96/05 MOTION RECEIVED ON NOTICE - SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

It was proposed and seconded that, as the matter was to be considered by the Standards Committee at their next scheduled meeting on 15^th September 2005, the following motion signed by Councillors Mrs Allaway, Clarke, Moore, Parkhurst, Sambrook and Townsend be withdrawn:

"Following the advice received from the Assistant Solicitor in relation to electing a Chairperson for the Scrutiny Committee, it is apparent that there is a fundamental need to make clear interpretation of Part 4 sub-paragraph 6 on page 90 of the Constitution. Council therefore requests the Standards Committee to review this section of the Constitution and make recommendations thereon."

On being put to the meeting the withdrawal of the motion was accepted.

97/05 MOTION RECEIVED ON NOTICE - CYCLE HELMETS

Due notice having been given in accordance with the Council's procedural rules, the following motion signed by Councillors Mrs Chebsey, Evans, Freestone, J P Jones and Kenny was proposed by Councillor Mrs Chebsey and seconded by Councillor Kenny:

"That this Council writes to the Government requesting that it considers bringing in legislation requiring cyclists to wear cycle helmets on and off road.

That in the meantime this Council examines the possibility of introducing a by-law requiring all cyclist to wear helmets on and off road throughout the Borough."

It was moved as an amendment by Councillor Nutting and seconded by Councillor Mrs. Jones that the motion be amended by the addition and deletion of words to read as follows:

"That this Council writes to the MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham, Daniel Kawczynski and to the Government requesting that it considers bringing in legislation requiring cyclists to wear cycle helmets on and off road.

On receiving the Government response this Council examines the possibility of introducing a by-law requiring all cyclists to wear helmets on and off road throughout the Borough."

On being put to the meeting the amendment was carried with 21 members voting in favour and 2 against.

The original motion, as amended, was then put to the Council and was carried with 21 members voting in favour and 1 against.

98/05 THE FORUM - QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS

The following question was asked by Councillor Kenny and replied to by Councillor Owen :

Question:

Most would agree that the IT presentation to members on 30^th June 2005 was very good. However, I have yet to receive a satisfactory explanation as to why members were not informed about the "Forum - Have Your Say on the Internet". (For those who do not know since early last Autumn, members of the public have been allowed to address the Council via the Internet about matters in their ward and there are some rather pointed questions about Councillor Richey).

Why were members not informed about the Forum and at the date of submitting the question still to be advised as to how it should work?

How does the Forum work? Who decided to introduce the scheme? When will be receive training about the Forum?

Answer:

"With regard to the decision to introduce online forums the Council's IEG4 Statement (approved by Cabinet in December 2004) sets out that online forums will be introduced to satisfy IEG requirement G3 - "that electronic systems must be in place to facilitate customer participation and response in matters of public interest".

The forums were initially introduced to allow public comment on the "Big Issue" projects. They were extended in early December to include individual ward forums.

Members should have been notified of any topics raised (there have been 6 in total to date). This was an omission on the part of ICT and Councillor Kenny has received an apology to that effect. It was always ICT's intention to automate the notification process and it has been in the implementation of that automatic process that there has been a delay. Plans are however now in place to correct the situation.

In relation to how it works and member training, a demonstration of the forums was given at the recent ICT presentation. It was always the intention to launch them in this way. Specific instructions have also been emailed to Councillor Kenny. An introductory forum entitled "How to use these forums" can be found on the website at www.shrewsbury.gov.uk/forum/.

To ensure that in future all members are fully aware of how to access and use the forums they will each be receiving further instruction in the near future.

Supplementary Question:

From now onwards can you ensure that members are kept abreast of all ICT developments in particular those that affect them and their engagement with the community?

Supplementary Answer:

I do believe that the questions that have been raised really are wasting, in many ways, the time of members of the Council tonight. The particular concerns Councillor Kenny had at the seminar we ran were dealt with then. Furthermore, the questions are in my view even wasting officers time by taking it to a further level, when in fact my response to your questions I believe cover the questions quite adequately. It is clear why we have to do what we have to do. What do you want? Blood from the officers? Your concerns were expressed, they apologised profusely for their omission. If you read the IEG papers that came before this Council which have been followed and adopted by the small team in the ICT Service who have worked tremendously hard and tirelessly to achieve those objectives and have brought substantial gain both financial and otherwise to this Borough. These people, it is inevitable, will make a small mistake and its unfortunate but that is the very nature of the pressures that this particular service are under. This Borough has been singled out amongst twelve authorities to be mentors to other establishments and it is pleasing to see that this Borough is the only district council as the other eleven are in fact county councils and it is a pity that our own county council is not one of those authorities that can mentor such other establishments. If you read the last sentence of my reply you will see that we are going to have a further seminar. The seminar that we had earlier was in a way a "sheep dip" into the many aspects that this particular service is following and it was unfortunate that we did not cover it in great depth, or bring it to the attention of everyone but we will. In the near future we are going to have more detailed seminars so that people and members in particular can understand what is going on.

99/05 REVENUE BUDGET 2006/2007 - QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS

The following question was asked by Councillor Kenny and replied to by Councillor Nutting:

Question:

How much do you see the revenue shortfall for next year? Which services are going to be cut?

Answer:

I expect the revenue shortfall to be in line with expenditure. I don't expect any services to be cut but when we are undertaking the budget process in the Autumn, all aspects will be discussed then.

100/05 AFFORDABLE HOUSING - QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS

The following question was asked by Councillor Kenny and replied to by Councillor Price:

Question:

There are about 2,000 people on the housing waiting list. You have said that the planning process will provide affordable housing. How is the Planning Process going to provide housing for the needy?

Answer:

The Council has policies in the Adopted Local Plan which set out how it will secure affordable housing through Rural Exceptions Housing Schemes (Policy HS7) and by negotiating an element of affordable housing on development sites (Policy HS8). Following consideration of the results of the Borough Housing Needs Survey (2004) and the recommendations of the consultants who carried out the Survey, the Council has prepared updated Interim Affordable Housing Policies, which the Council is being recommended by Cabinet to adopt tonight (following amendments in the light of consultation responses).

The Interim Affordable Housing Policies retain the Rural Exceptions Housing Schemes Policy HS7, but adds that the Council will consider urban exceptions sites of limited scale as a departure from the Local Plan. Policy HS8 is strengthened to enable the Council to negotiate 35% of houses on qualifying sites as affordable (rather than 30% in the Local Plan), with qualifying sites being sites of 15 dwellings/0.5 hectares and above in Shrewsbury and sites of 3 dwellings or more in HS3 and HS4 villages (rather than just sites in excess of 25 dwellings or 1 hectare in the Local Plan).

If adopted by Council, these Policies will apply until replaced by the new policies of the Development Plan Documents of the Borough Local Development Framework. Cabinet considered Draft Core Policies, including relating to affordable housing, at its meeting on 21^st July. In due course, the Council will also identify and allocate sites for new housing development, which will trigger the provision of affordable housing on those sites.

"Affordable" housing includes low cost home ownership, shared equity and social rented housing. In addition to seeking provision of such housing through the policies referred to above, the Council can also encourage developers to provide a mix of housing on their sites in order to improve the overall balance of the housing stock in the area.

In summary, the planning process can play a part in requiring and encouraging the provision of some affordable housing through the implementation of the policies of the Local Plan/Local Development Framework. However, the yield from this can not meet all of the need for affordable housing in the Borough, so the planning process is only part of the answer to a very big question.

Supplementary Question:

In the past you have said the planning process will provide affordable housing, now you are saying the planning process is only part of the answer. Can you tell us then, how many social housing dwellings for rent will be provided by private developers, i.e. not registered social housing landlords, but pending in the planning process.

Supplementary Answer:

I cannot give Councillor Kenny the exact figures he is after but I thank him for his supplementary question and the opportunity to expand on the answer to the original question. What I have said consistently all along is the planning process is not going to provide all the affordable housing this Borough requires. I maintain that I have said it and I will say it again. Also new housing is not the only issue in respect of affordable provision. We need to look at empty properties. The last figure I had for empty properties in the Borough was 700 and it is probably somewhere near the same now and needs to be tackled. I am sure that I do not have to remind this Council that we decided not long ago that any person with a second property that was empty should pay the full Council Tax, so that was our first stage to try to knock into gear some of those empty properties to bring them back into use. In addition, Registered Social Landlords need to deal with their void properties. I am sure Councillor Kenny, like myself, has been approached by many people in need of housing with them pointing out that a particular house has been empty for six months and asking what we were doing about it. I accept that there could be legitimate reasons for a property being empty such as structural defects etc. but I still believe that Registered Social Landlords need to look at why they were taking so long to turn round empty properties. Also, with regard to the management of Registered Social Landlords, they need to look at internal transfers and how they could move their tenants about to make the best use of the existing properties. Clearly, from my experience, that is not happening. It is all those issues that need to be addressed too and not just a question of providing new properties. If you want to talk about new properties in particular, what I would say is that under the new interim affordable housing policy, approved earlier tonight and which will come again in the Core Strategy, we will be saying in future through consultation with developers coming forward with plans what the right mix for a development will be and what type of properties they should be in terms of type and size, so that we try to get the correct provision of affordable housing. However, remember what I said, new development and planning will not provide every house that is required.

101/05 COMMUNITY SAFETY/RE-OFFENDING - QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS

The following question was asked by Councillor Kenny and replied to by Councillor Mrs. Holyoak:

Question:

Do you think that one community safety officer and two community development workers is adequate to serve the Borough?

What are your plans to reduce or better still eliminate the cycle of re-offending amongst drug users?

Answer:

With regard to your first point I am advised by the Service Manager and his key personnel that staff resources for undertaking current community development and safety initiatives are considered adequate.

Community Development and Safety budgets are underpinned by a strong emphasis on the formation of effective and action focused partnerships to assist in the delivery of corporate and community focused targets.

The recent restructure which has seen the merger of Leisure Services and Community Development will also support the future effectiveness of both departments with resulting benefit to the communities of Shrewsbury and Atcham through interdepartmental initiatives (already commenced) and future adoption of cross cutting strategies.

However, community safety (anti-social behaviour, CCTV etc.) is high on the Government's agenda and that of most communities and as legislation evolves as it undoubtedly will, the role, remit and resources of community safety will need to evolve at equal pace. A process of which members of this Council will naturally be kept advised.

In relation to your second point, over the past 12 months there has been further investment in drug treatment services by the Drug Action Team (DAT) and the Drug Interventions Programme team (DIP), administered by Shropshire County Council but with positive partnership contribution from SABC.

This work with drug users starts as soon as the perpetrator enters the criminal justice system. A member of the DIP team will seek the permission of the prisoner to speak with them in their cells regarding them entering onto a drug rehabilitation programme.

The table below illustrates the results for Shropshire drug users. Currently the information is not available as a borough/district breakdown.

2004/05	Target	Actual
Number of drug users referred to DIP team	200	188
% of drug users entered onto the programme following referral	85%	60%
% of drug users to complete the rehabilitation programme	75%	75%

One of the main issues for people with a drug misuse problem is finding appropriate housing once they leave the penal system. DAT is currently engaging with housing providers to address this issue by working with supporting people and DIP aftercare workers who assist with employment, housing, leisure opportunities etc. to help keep individuals off drugs and away from crime.

Persistent and other Priority Offenders (PPO)

Shropshire has approximately 21 PPO's 85% to 90% have a drug misuse problem (the majority of PPO's live in Shrewsbury - including the PPO's in custodian sentences). The DIP team and the Police work in partnership to fast track these individuals onto drug rehabilitation programmes (which are voluntary) alternatively the Police inform the individual that they are considered a PPO and for this reason will be watching them closely under the catch and convict strand. The Safety partnership work under the prevent and deter strand with the other strand of rehabilitate and resettle being led by Probation.

The Community Safety Partnership has representation on the Countywide Safety Partnership and is constantly working to educate, provide treatment and disrupt the drug market.

Supplementary Question:

Finding appropriate housing for drug offenders leaving the penal system might actually reduce crime. So what are you doing about finding appropriate housing?

Supplementary Answer:

I can elaborate more in a written answer.

102/05 CCTV/SIGNAL CRIME- QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS

The following question was asked by Councillor Kenny and replied to by Councillor Mrs. Holyoak:

Question:

Could we have an explanation as to why it took 18 months to install the CCTV camera in Abbey Foregate?

What are you going to do about signal crime in the crime hot spot areas?

Answer:

Although it is not acceptable to have taken eighteen months to install the Abbey Foregate camera, there were areas that caused delay. Initially letters were sent out in October 2003 to consult with local residents on their views to having a camera installed. Funding was secured from Police resources. The main problem was to gain permission from English Heritage due to the area being a scheduled ancient monument. Concerns were that the CCTV lamp column could cause damage to the heritage site.

In February 2005 Community Safety wrote once again to all residents to consult them on their views to install a CCTV camera in Abbey Foregate, the reason being the time lapse since the initial consultation.

All the above being exacerbated by changes in key personnel allied to this Council's post of Community Safety Officer and lack of staff resources in other supporting sections of the Council.

With regard to your second point the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) is addressing signal crimes through the Public Service Agreements (PSA) 1,2, 4 and 6 (in-depth information can be found in the Community Safety Strategy)

PSA1 Reduce Crime by 14% for SABC and Shropshire

PSA2 Reduce ASB and fear of crime

PSA4 Reduce drug and alcohol misuse

PSA 6 Community empowerment

At the last CSP steering group meeting (8^th July 2005) a lengthy discussion took place around PSA 1,2 and 4. The discussions have prompted the Steering Group to re-evaluate the membership and effectiveness of the steering group and sub-groups. Discussion between Government Office West Midlands (GOWM) and the CSP steering group are currently lead by this Council's Community Safety Officer (Dave Roberts). This is to redirect a percentage of the funding from GOWM (£143,000) towards some of the Borough's highest crime areas which tend to be areas where signal crime is most prevalent.

Community Safety is being driven into new areas of partnership funding through Local Area Agreements and will allow pooling of funds to deliver the priorities of local people. SABC will be the catalyst for the County achievements. Within the partnership Community Safety will be one of the leading partners in Anti-social behaviour and CCTV through experience gained. The partnership will help lead possible accreditation and street scene to address signal crime through local knowledge, community guardianship and information sharing by drilling down from national data to local knowledge and awareness.

Supplementary Question:

The post and cabling for the CCTV camera in Abbey Foregate is now installed. When is the camera going to be put in place?

Supplementary Answer:

I understand the camera is being put in place today and should be working by the end of the week.

Further Supplementary Question:

With regard to signal crime and community hotspot areas, you did not attend the last Community Safety Partnership meeting where we were given a presentation from the Government Office for the West Midlands. How are you going to carry out the improvements asked for by the GOWM?

Further Supplementary Answer:

I will provide a written reply.

103/05 EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

It was proposed by Councillor Nutting, seconded by Councillor Roberts and

RESOLVED:

That the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that the items to be considered involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.

104/05 CEMETERY

It was proposed by Councillor Cooke, seconded by Councillor Nutting and

RESOLVED:

That the recommendations set out in the exempt report of the Environmental Health Manager be accepted and the costs of the works be funded from Reserved Capital Receipts.

105/05 OPPORTUNITY SALE

This item was included on the agenda at the request of the Chief Executive in consultation with The Mayor and Leader as an urgent item by virtue of the opportunity that had been offered to the Council.

It was proposed by Councillor Thurston and seconded by Councillor Adams that the recommendations in the exempt report of the Chief Executive be adopted.

It was moved as an amendment by Councillor Armstrong and seconded by Councillor Roberts that the recommendations in the exempt report of the Chief Executive be amended in line with the addition and deletion of words tabled at the meeting in relation to the opportunity sale.

On being put to the meeting the amendment was carried.

The original motion as amended was then put to the meeting and it was:

RESOLVED:

That the recommendations in the exempt report of the Chief Executive, amended in line with the addition and deletion of words tabled at the meeting in relation to the opportunity sale, be adopted.

(Note: In accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972, the full decision of Council is excluded from the above minute on the basis that it contains exempt information. However the above provides a fair summary of the decision taken for the purposes of the Act.)

 

6.00 p.m. - 8.50 p.m.